THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, May 27, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5:00 p.m. [ET] to study matters relating to minority-language health services, to study the application of the Official Languages Act and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act, and to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 24 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024; and in camera for consideration of a draft report.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick, and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.
If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between two microphones.
Only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down, on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.
Thank you all for your cooperation.
I invite committee members to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Audette: Michèle Audette from Quebec.
Senator Aucoin: Albert Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you. I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome Senator Audette, who is now joining the committee and will be a member of the steering committee. Welcome, Senator Audette.
I wish to welcome all of you and viewers across the country who may be watching. I would like to point out that I am taking part in this meeting from within the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
[English]
Tonight, we continue our study on minority-language health services by welcoming researchers and organizations able to address the theme of health professionals and post-secondary institutions, one of the seven themes of our study.
For our first panel, we welcome, in person, Elena Valenzuela, Director and Associate Dean of the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute at the University of Ottawa.
[Translation]
Welcome, Ms. Valenzuela.
We also welcome our witness joining us by video conference, from Manitoba, Dr. José François, Provincial Chief Medical Officer of Shared Health and Association Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the Max Rady College of Medicine at the University of Manitoba.
Good evening to you both, and thank you for accepting our invitation. We will now hear each of your opening remarks. They will be followed by questions from the senators.
[English]
The floor is yours, Ms. Valenzuela.
[Translation]
Elena Valenzuela, Director and Associate Dean, Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute, University of Ottawa: Mr. Chair, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, thank you for inviting me to present my views on minority-language health services and the role of post‑secondary institutions.
For more than 15 years, I have been conducting research on minority languages in the Canadian context. In my research, I examine the challenges of maintaining one’s minority languages, the relationship between language and identity, and the effects that policy has on maintaining the home language.
Now, in my role as director of the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute at the University of Ottawa, the largest bilingual university in the world, I have the pleasure of working with teachers, professors, researchers and students who are committed to and actively support Canada’s bilingual mission, which is part of Canada’s DNA.
[English]
There has been a good amount of research on the impact of language of care for anglophone, francophone and allophone patients in minority language settings in Canada. A study looking at patients from long-term care facilities admitted to hospitals in Ontario showed that when patients received care in their own language — French, English or a non-official language — they had shorter hospital stays, decreased anxiety and fewer adverse effects while in hospital. Similar studies outside of Canada support Canadian findings. When health care providers can speak with patients in the patient’s language, there is improved direct communication, resulting in increased patient autonomy. It is a matter of dignity and respect to be able to receive care in your first language and thus take ownership of your own health and wellness.
On a personal note, I am the daughter of Spanish immigrants and have first-hand experience with this issue. My father worked for the government here in Canada for 30 years, speaking both French and English. Now, at 88 years old, he is still proficient in French and English, but Spanish remains his dominant language. I accompany him to all his medical appointments because he finds that the combination of hearing loss and needing to speak in his second language creates a certain anxiety that makes it difficult for him to retain medical information. I am there to translate for him. The few times we have come across health care workers who spoke Spanish, I could see an immediate difference in my father’s engagement with his care.
Having access to health care in one’s minority language ensures effective communication and better health outcomes. It reinforces the cultural and linguistic identity of the community. By providing health care services in the minority language, we acknowledge and support the integral role it plays in the well‑being and cultural continuity of its speakers. It also supports the maintenance and survival of our official languages. Once we start cutting access to official languages in minority settings, we will start to lose that language. If Canada wants to uphold its commitment to bilingualism, it will have to keep these essential services accessible in the minority language.
Minority-language communities, including francophones outside Quebec, Indigenous peoples and allophones, face substantial barriers in accessing health services. These barriers impact health care quality and the overall well-being of these communities. Universities and post-secondary institutions can address these challenges through research, education and community engagement.
In the following, I will address some key points.
First, training of health professionals: One of the most pressing challenges is the shortage of health professionals who are proficient in minority languages. Universities can address this gap by integrating language training into health-related programs. For example, the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute at the University of Ottawa offers French immersion programs as well as certifications for bilingual health care providers. At the university, our main challenge is funding and support for these programs.
Second, interdisciplinary education: Universities can foster interdisciplinary collaboration, which is essential for addressing complex health issues. This approach ensures that graduates not only understand the clinical aspects of health care but also the cultural and linguistic nuances that affect patient care.
Finally, bilingual and plurilingual health programs: Establishing more bilingual health programs within universities can attract students who already speak minority languages and provide them with additional support and training. Although most health science programs outside of Quebec are English, there are several programs that are French but fewer still that are bilingual. Language training for future health care workers should not be minimized. Scholarships and financial incentives can further encourage students to pursue these programs, addressing the shortage of bilingual health professionals.
To conclude, post-secondary institutions play a crucial role in improving minority-language health services by providing linguistic training to health professionals, conducting research, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and engaging with communities. By investing in these areas, we can ensure that all Canadians, regardless of their language, can better engage in their own health care, gain autonomy and feel the sense of dignity and respect we all deserve. Linguistic rights are human rights.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you so much, Ms. Valenzuela.
[Translation]
Dr. François, the floor is now yours, and we’re ready to hear your opening remarks.
Dr. José François, Provincial Chief Medical Officer, Shared Health, and Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, As an individual: Ladies and gentlemen of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on the issue of the delivery of health services in minority language communities.
I would particularly like to emphasize the importance of training French-speaking health care professionals in these communities by sharing with you our experience in Manitoba.
I’m a family physician and currently hold the position of Provincial Chief Medical Officer at Common Care. Since entering practice in 1999, I have been actively working to set up programs to train bilingual physicians and improve French-language health services in Manitoba.
As we all know, language is not simply a means of communication; it is a fundamental aspect of one’s identity and well-being. Ensuring that minority language communities have access to health care services in their own language remains a major challenge, particularly for francophone communities outside Quebec.
The importance of providing health care services in one’s own language cannot be overstated. Language barriers can lead to misunderstandings, misdiagnoses, poorer adherence to treatment plans, and ultimately poorer health outcomes for individuals from minority language communities.
A crucial step in addressing this issue is the training of an adequate number of bilingual health care professionals in minority language communities.
By promoting localized initiatives to train and retain French-speaking health care professionals in these communities, not only can we improve access to French-language health care services, but we can also strengthen the sense of belonging and cultural identity of minority francophone populations.
These initiatives can take many forms, from targeted efforts to partnerships between universities, health care institutions and community organizations. In Manitoba, we’re using a variety of approaches, health career promotion activities with our partners in the Consortium national de formation en santé, the CNFS, university-to-university agreements to promote the return to training in external programs, as with the universities of Ottawa or Sherbrooke, and targeted programming within the University of Manitoba’s Faculty of Medicine, including undergraduate programming in an English-language training program and a family medicine residency program that is quite unique in western Canada.
Without a doubt, our local activities aimed at bilingual training in family medicine have had a great impact, both in terms of the number of learners and the eventual offer of French-language services in our province.
Training can’t be carried out without considering the local organization of services. It’s often said that “the clinic is the curriculum.” The presence of clinical settings where there is an active offer of services in French and where there is a concentration of bilingual professionals is an important factor for success.
By investing in the training of French-speaking health care professionals in minority language communities, we can help build a more inclusive and equitable health care system that meets the needs of all Canadians, whatever their language.
What’s more, by supporting the training of French-speaking health care professionals in minority language communities, we can also help address broader health care workforce challenges, such as recruitment and retention in rural and underserved areas.
These initiatives have the potential not only to improve access to health care services for francophone minority populations, but also to strengthen the resilience and overall sustainability of the health care system.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to the discussions and possible recommendations that will come out of your study.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. François. We’ll now open the floor to questions. I’ll remind my colleagues that we agreed on five minutes for questions and answers. If time permits, we’ll have a second round.
I’ll give the floor to Senator Moncion first.
Senator Moncion: Thank you to both witnesses. Dr. François, my first question is for you and concerns something you just mentioned about the concentration of health care personnel in an active offer of services in French. During the pandemic, I think we became effective in offering services virtually, where patients had the opportunity to meet with health care professionals virtually and to receive diagnoses or access tests in hospital. I think a certain degree of efficiency was achieved during that period.
In your setting, how do you see the future of virtual when you have a concentration of professionals present in a given location, within a province, in francophone minority communities, who would be able to offer services in French to people without being physically present in the same place?
How do you factor this into your future plans?
Dr. François: In fact, virtual has become a widely used tool. In my own family medicine practice, I would say that 30% of visits are virtual, which allows us to provide services more quickly. I also see it as complementary to our in-person work. People need to travel less often. We can deal with geographic problems.
In offering services in French in Manitoba, for example, we’re taking a close look at virtual services to improve access, particularly in mental health disciplines. It’s a mode of communication that lends itself very well to professionals, such as mental health counsellors, psychologists and psychiatrists. We’re actively looking at how we can ensure that these services are available to geographically more isolated communities, and in particular to our linguistic minority communities.
I think there’s still a need for in-person services, and the concentration of services is important for our learners. There’s no substitute for entering a clinic where the work is done in French and where learners can communicate with other professionals. Those are my thoughts on the matter.
Senator Moncion: Ms. Valenzuela?
[English]
Ms. Valenzuela: I agree with Dr. François that it wouldn’t be fair if minority speakers only had virtual visits whereas majority speakers had access to both. Further training of health professionals — not just the doctor, as he was saying, but the technicians and all aspects of health care — is needed. Virtual visits can help so that you can access your minority language, but to make things fair, people should have the option — I’m not sure if I’m answering your question — of having not just virtual if they want to be cared for in their first language but having access to both. That is very important.
Senator Moncion: I’ll go further with my train of thought. You said that it was a question of respect and dignity for people to be able to describe their problem in their own language. The way I see the virtual aspect in the future is where doctors have access to professionals who can speak the language of the patient.
Ms. Valenzuela: Right.
Senator Moncion: The patient might be in an office with a doctor and there might be a language issue where the doctor, who for example, speaks only English, can have access to professionals on a virtual basis where the patient is explaining to the francophone doctors what the situation is and where there is a collaboration between doctors. I would see the same in the university environment, where we create these connecting systems where language may not be a barrier anymore. We would not be using iPads for translation. You could actually have access to people who speak the language and can help. That’s where I see the evolution in the future.
Ms. Valenzuela: That’s probably where it’s going. The problem is that some people might not feel comfortable because they want the direct contact with the doctor. Having the intervention of someone else in the meeting may not give them as much ownership. I’m a language professional; I’m not a health professional. Again, I’m looking at it from the language point of view and, sort of, the ethics. But certainly having a health team that helps the person and having one team member who does speak the language, of course, that would be better than not having access to anything. It’s better than nothing, but is that what we want? In the studies that I’ve read on this topic, direct contact with the doctor, direct access, not through someone else, really reduces the anxiety.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Ms. Valenzuela, could you tell us more about the fact that universities should offer more language courses to people working in the health care field? I was wondering what we, as senators, could do or what the government could do to make this more accessible. I can understand why students might be reluctant to spend more time in school or university learning a second language. Are students open to this possibility? Will that training become mandatory? I have several questions about this.
[English]
Ms. Valenzuela: Well, certainly, we do not want to discourage anyone from going into health care or health sciences. Making something obligatory would probably not be ideal, but we should be encouraging the people who do have even a little training in the other language to explore that. Even if they’re not top-level, near native-speaker-like — sorry, we’re not supposed to say that — if they’re not an L1-proficient speaker of French or English but they really make the effort and understand, that just puts the patient at ease.
Having the option of language training and encouraging that and saying that this is a good thing because you can serve more people and be more inclusive that way and having some scholarships or some incentives would encourage people to pursue their bilingualism or to explore that side or pursue the combining of language with health services. It is important to have them both together.
[Translation]
Dr. François: I can give you a tangible example. At the University of Manitoba, a significant number of francophiles are admitted every year. These are anglophones who have studied in French immersion, who may have dropped out of high school or who have completed their bachelor of science in English and are feeling a little rusty. These people are reluctant to take a medical course in French only. However, we’re keen to pick up those of them who are admitted to the University of Manitoba’s Faculty of Medicine, which is an English-language program.
We have set up a refresher course for that population. We have a course called Professional Medical French. This program teaches terminology. It consists of several sessions and is offered during the two pre-clinical years. This course focuses specifically on clinical interviews. We’re not talking about scientific terms, but about the vocabulary used in day-to-day practice. There are simulations where students do their clinical interviews with simulated patients. They even do clinical examinations. Students tell us that this training is an asset because it gives them more practice with clinical interviewing. They feel more comfortable when it comes to exams than their colleagues who only do so in English, so there’s added value for these students. This training gives them some comfort, and they don’t hesitate when they arrive at the clinic. They have a certain amount of preparation. They can be assigned patients and are less hesitant about working in our environment.
So there are strategies; perhaps other places in Canada could use similar strategies for their francophile students.
[English]
Ms. Valenzuela: That is very similar to our French immersion program that we have at the University of Ottawa. It is content-based. You’re not just doing les fiches d’re-evaluation and things like that, but you’re a francophile and you want to practise your French within the content of the courses you’re taking. It really reduces linguistic anxiety. As you can tell from my French accent, I’m also a product of French immersion. Sometimes I feel bad about my accent. This program helps to reduce linguistic anxiety because it helps you practise using the vocabulary you’re used to in the area in which you’re studying. It’s a very good program.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you very much. This type of program should and probably could be extended not only to medical schools, but to all areas of the profession.
I’ll go back to my original question. You mentioned the word “scholarships.” What can the federal government do? That’s sort of why we’re here. What can be recommended?
[English]
Ms. Valenzuela: Scholarships or reduced tuition fees, for example. Incentives like that are really nice because tuition is very expensive. It’s hard for students. It’s a sacrifice to go to university. Any kind of tuition rebate would be wonderful, any recognition like that or anything that would give an edge to look for a job later. If we’re really putting value on bilingual health care professionals, a certificate showing someone is bilingual should help them and give them a boost when looking for jobs in Canada.
Dr. François: There certainly is some additional cost to that additional training. Medical schools do need to invest. Financial support is needed to train the group of standardized patients you may be using or to find the additional teacher capacity to provide those French-language development courses.
At the University of Manitoba, we also invite students in our physician assistant program, and we’ve invited physiotherapists who work under our broader faculty of health sciences to join our medical students. There is an opportunity to really make this interprofessional and to tailor the content based on the groups.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a follow-up question. We heard in committee that some doctors who can offer services in both languages don’t do so because of work overload. Is this a reality you encounter in hospital settings? I’m thinking of Dr. François in particular, but, of course, you can answer the question. Is that a reality? If so, how do you see this challenge being addressed?
Dr. François: Maybe it’s not because of the work overload. I think it’s more a question of trust. Some people have done part of their training in French, or they have an average command of French, and they may be concerned about making a mistake because they lack confidence in their linguistic ability. Others simply don’t identify themselves as French speakers.
In the Canadian context, there are many people with family names that make it impossible to tell if they are francophone. If they don’t make it known, it’s a lost opportunity to use French.
[English]
The Chair: Is there something in terms of strategy or in terms of linguistic training? Ms. Valenzuela, is there something that you think could be improved?
Ms. Valenzuela: Based upon what he said, the idea of worrying about making a mistake, that is also linguistic anxiety. With additional training, such as French immersion or that sort of support, that content-based training, would help assuage that anxiety.
Dr. François: Health care institutions can also promote that this is an added value to their institution. That messaging by hospitals or health care organizations that this is an important piece of the care they provide also has a facilitating factor in this.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I’d like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.
My first question is for Dr. François. You mentioned the various methods that the University of Manitoba has tried to put in place, such as training French-speaking doctors and inter‑university agreements with the Université de Sherbrooke, among others, to improve and increase the number of French-speaking health care providers. Have you been able to measure the success rate of these various methods in terms of retaining French-speaking professionals? Are there other indicators that could help you measure this success rate?
Dr. François: That’s a very good question. At the University of Manitoba, we recently looked at the retention rate of our students in our bilingual family medicine program. Our retention rate was very similar to the rate of our anglophone sites, when you exclude people who come from outside. Where I come from, the main retention factor…. Often, if the person isn’t from Manitoba and comes to study in Manitoba, we tend to lose those people.
We were interested in the number of French-speaking graduates who work in a francophone context. For us, that was the largest measure, and we saw that about 80% of our graduates from the bilingual program worked in a bilingual or francophone setting in Manitoba. For us, it’s a guarantee of success to train our own people so that we can retain the vast majority of these people.
We asked them if they used French often. More than half responded that they used French every day; 35% said they used French several times a week; 10% said they used it occasionally. We therefore found that the majority of our graduates working in a francophone context were using their language skills.
Senator Mégie: That’s very interesting. Is there a way to extend your strategies to other provinces? Ms. Valenzuela mentioned earlier that there are other initiatives at the University of Ottawa. Is there a way of transferring this approach to other provinces that might have similar results to yours? What do you think?
Dr. François: In the Canadian context, communities with a high concentration of francophones could replicate what we have done. In a community like Edmonton, there’s a francophone health care centre that could provide training and residency training, and do somewhat the same thing as we do. You’d think that, in Saskatchewan, with its high concentration of francophones, there would be places where you could do the same thing. There are also other communities in Ontario, probably, as well as in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Senator Mégie: Ms. Valenzuela, when I listen to you speak, I get the impression that all of these are wishes. Have you already tried them out and found they didn’t work, or are you going to put them into practice?
[English]
Ms. Valenzuela: They are part wishes and part reality. The reality is that we do have French immersion programs that accompany undergraduate health sciences programs and other programs around the university. We do have an agreement with a master’s program in health sciences as well. That is all wonderful, but the thing is that we just keep getting cutbacks. In order to maintain this, we need funding and support. We do have it and, at my institute, we are committed to language training, support and research. All we want is to provide the service and to expand it.
In the pathways programs that we have, international students come and take our language courses before they enter into their undergraduate degrees. That is what we want to do. In terms of my wishes or my suggestions, yes, it is the incentives to students to make it more available for everyone, as many people as want it.
Attracting students, as Dr. François was saying, who are francophile and who have gone through the immersion program, attracting those students as well, especially in the region here, would be an easy way to expand the bilingual services.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you very much to you both.
Senator Clement: Good evening, and thank you to the witnesses. My questions are for our two witnesses. I’ll ask them and then let you answer them.
My first question is for Dr. François. Thank you for mentioning the importance of strengthening the sense of belonging, because it’s really the key to everything that ails us; truly.
You mentioned community organizations, and the testimony we’ve heard so far has often reminded us that it’s organizations that play the role of bridge or identify where there are gaps. Can you tell us about the involvement of community organizations? You also talked about targeted programming, a bilingual residency that’s unique in western Canada. Could you tell us about that? That would be very much appreciated.
[English]
Ms. Valenzuela, thank you for mentioning your dad. It is interesting. My mother tongue is French. I am bilingual, but when I came out of surgery, I just wanted to speak French. It was visceral. Of course, the English comes back, but when I was vulnerable and just coming out of anesthetic, I only had French. For your dad, being fluently trilingual, it makes sense that he would feel the Spanish.
We are talking about official languages in minority contexts, so I am wondering about what you are saying in terms of other languages.
Ms. Valenzuela: Right.
Senator Clement: You also mentioned engaging with communities and community organizations. Perhaps you could speak to that as well. You started to talk about cultural competence.
I will start with Dr. François and then go to you.
[Translation]
Dr. François: In terms of other community organizations, I think there are two ways forward.
First of all, there’s the work that’s done in clinical settings. I work in a community health centre in Saint-Boniface, and we work a lot with organizations for newcomers, people in schools and community agencies. So that’s part of our clinical work.
What we try to do with our learners, when they are in a clinical setting, is to let them see a bit of what we do in terms of programming. We have the luxury of having a community development agency that liaises with agencies. We make sure that our learners, whether they’re a medical student, a resident, a pharmacy student or a nurse practitioner, see that the care goes way beyond what we do in the office. We make sure they have a perspective on activities and encourage them to take part in community activities. That’s what we’re doing in this area.
We’ve had a family medicine residency program since 2005. We started with two family medicine residents. We now have five to six per year doing their two-year training. Most of the training takes place at the Centre de santé Saint-Boniface. However, we are working with two rural communities, Sainte‑Anne and Notre-Dame. We make sure our students see the variety of francophone contexts, both urban and rural.
A large part of our training is in family medicine. For example, for their work in psychiatry, instead of doing an internship, students work with a French-speaking psychiatrist who does consultation in our community. For geriatric exposure, we do long-term care. Students will follow us to a francophone long-term care centre in Winnipeg. We try to optimize and maximize the time they spend in a setting where they are in contact with francophone patients.
Moreover, we’re moving more and more towards teamwork. We work as an interdisciplinary team, with pharmacists, nurses, nurse practitioners, dieticians and mental health counsellors. Recently, we’ve been welcoming learners from different fields of training. It adds to the richness of our environment to meet professionals from another professional group.
Senator Clement: Thank you. Do you work with municipalities to support the programs?
Dr. François: We have contact with the municipalities, especially for service delivery. We’ve talked to various municipal authorities who are trying to develop their clinics. We have more concentrated service hubs. There are places where we’d like to do more development, where there are fewer professionals and less concentration. We’re having discussions with municipal authorities in this context.
Senator Clement: Thank you. Ms. Valenzuela?
[English]
Ms. Valenzuela: I think your question was about why we would even discuss the non-official languages. The reality is that I have lived with this my whole life. It is always there. I feel a sense of camaraderie with the French community outside of Quebec in the minority setting. We have the same sort of thing with my parents and what I have lived with them and also with what I study in my research. Of course it’s different. An official language is different than an immigrant language. However, in terms of how many services are available to you or that sense that you want to keep your culture and you do not want to lose your identity, it is important to have these services in your minority language. That is why I brought it up. There are many comparisons we can make. It is, I know, fundamentally different, but there are comparisons — absolutely. I thought it was important to mention it.
What was your other question?
Senator Clement: Do you engage with community organizations? How do you do that?
Ms. Valenzuela: I was referring to the idea of experiential learning and working with the community to co-design and create these best practices for health care, let’s say, or whatever it is we’re talking about specifically. It has been very successful in social innovation and that kind of thing. I think that would be a nice way to have an interdisciplinary approach to problem solving for this.
Senator Clement: It is interesting how many times other languages come up, including Indigenous languages, right? We have two official languages, but belonging to a community is a factor with other languages as well. We are a country of diversity, so I appreciate your comment.
Ms. Valenzuela: The identity piece is a similar thread across.
The Chair: You spoke in your remarks about research. Of course, you are doing research. I would like to hear more about that. Is there enough data in terms of linguistic training, for example, or in terms of this situation? Are there some research studies done in French? I know that is an issue. It might be, in this case, a real issue if we’re speaking about linguistic training and linguistic skills. Can you speak to us about this, please?
Ms. Valenzuela: There is research. We have a lab at the university that is primarily francophone — not in my department but in another department — that looks at that. Yes, it is there. It is available. I can make it available. If you would like, I can send it to the clerk afterward and provide you with some refereed articles in French on this topic.
The Chair: We are trying to understand what the federal government can do or does not do enough of.
Ms. Valenzuela: Right.
The Chair: In that direction, do you think something more could be done by the federal government to make sure there is, first of all, research in French, but then to make sure we and you have all the data needed to tackle these problems?
Ms. Valenzuela: Yes. We could always use more data. What can the federal government do? Speaking as a university professor, we need funding to fund these projects. That is what it takes. We have to hire students to help us collect data. We need time to write the articles and analyze data. We need funding. Things have been so stressful and financially sticky at the university in the past few years, especially this past year in Ontario. It would be nice to have more funding and support.
[Translation]
The Chair: Dr. François, do you have anything to add to that? I’ll ask you right now: what are the biggest obstacles facing health care professionals who are trained to work in both official languages? What major obstacles do they face in their practice? First of all, though, I’d like to hear what you have to say about research and data.
Dr. François: In terms of research, we don’t have very good studies to tell us the optimal way to train students in a minority context. There are some good examples, but there are very few studies that illustrate the results when you take a small number of students in a minority context and train them in their language. There’s little information on that.
However, on the clinical side — we were just talking about virtual services — it would be useful to be able to assess satisfaction and results when delivering services in French. It would also be interesting, when using means that offer in-person services with a virtual complement, to determine the optimal rate of in-person versus virtual for offering services in francophone environments. It would be interesting to look at that. A lot of studies have been done on the health status of francophones. There are deficits. There’s work to be done on optimizing service delivery and training.
As far as obstacles are concerned, when we train professionals, we want them to start practising afterwards and have a concentration of French-speaking patients. We have to make sure that, when they start practising medicine, they can serve as many francophones as possible. Often, in our context, there’s a shortage. People will take any doctor that’s available. It’s very difficult for someone just starting out to say that they want to cap their francophone clientele at 50%. It simply becomes difficult in a financial context if you’re in private practice, where there are service fees.
When you work in a model or clinic where there’s a clear vocation in relation to the service offering, it’s much easier to serve a large percentage of French-speaking patients. In the case of specialist physicians — let’s say I’m a French-speaking geriatrician — there are challenges, because you don’t always have control over who refers patients. There’s work to be done to ensure that people in family medicine can easily recognize who is a francophone specialist, to ensure that a francophone patient is served by a francophone health care professional in their language when the opportunity arises.
There might be something to do along those lines.
The Chair: I’m going to ask you my last question right now before giving the floor to someone else. This is the kind of question you ask several witnesses. We’re talking about culture, but in your opinion, should language be formalized as a determinant of health? Should the Canada Health Act be amended to clearly include this linguistic dimension? What do you think, Dr. François?
Dr. François: Yes, over the years I’ve met many patients for whom lack of access to a service in their own language has harmed their health and caused access difficulties, delayed diagnoses and caused problems in adhering to a treatment plan. This is a factor. It impacts their health, ultimately.
[English]
Ms. Valenzuela: I agree. Language is an important part of your mental health, your overall health and your wellness. Speaking your first language and the language that you feel comfortable with immediately puts you at ease, and I think it should be a part of your whole health picture.
The Chair: After Senator Moncion asks her questions, I will ask you to repeat the last sentence of your speech because you said something important. I will ask you that question at the end.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: My question is for both witnesses. Canada has long been a bilingual country. Bilingualism isn’t just for francophones. Those who are born francophone learn to become bilingual — it’s almost compulsory — whereas for anglophones, it’s not compulsory. My question has to do with the admission criteria for university medical schools: shouldn’t being bilingual, before entering university, become a criterion or the main criterion for medical schools?
[English]
Ms. Valenzuela: Again, speaking as linguist, not as a health professional, I think that would be a wonderful way to encourage more bilingualism amongst future health care professionals and doctors. If someone is monolingual and wants to go to med school, good for them. However, it should be incentivized if you are bilingual. That would be a wonderful way to increase the bilingual service.
Senator Moncion: The encouragement has to be provided when kids come into school, not when they are at the medical level and where they are making a career choice.
Ms. Valenzuela: That is right.
Senator Moncion: It might be later.
[Translation]
Dr. François: In our activities to promote a career in health care, we mention that being bilingual is an advantage. It opens doors to a wider range of educational institutions. Francophone or immersion students in Manitoba are reminded that they can apply for medical training at the University of Ottawa or francophone universities in Quebec, for example, in addition to English-language educational institutions. This opens doors for them.
On the question of admissions, at the University of Manitoba, we are currently reflecting on the admission of people who are francophones or francophiles. We want to raise the profile to increase the pool of students who choose our bilingual stream. We’re also looking at certain barriers. Many English-speaking Canadian universities use the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). U.S. studies show that Spanish speakers do less well. We’re looking into whether we should do away with the MCAT for the admission of applicants whose first language is French. We’re looking at these issues to enhance participation.
Senator Moncion: I’ll take my thinking a step further. I’ll take the example of the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, where there were a number of spaces identified specifically for Indigenous candidates. As a result, they started training Indigenous doctors who would end up providing services in Indigenous areas. There was this mandatory criterion, and no one else could take those spots. This gives others a chance. In French-language or bilingual universities, it’s easier to find francophone or bilingual doctors. On the other hand, when you get to our English-speaking Canadian universities, which don’t have this admission criterion…. This means that we continue to produce doctors who speak only English, whereas if there were spaces reserved even in these universities for students who are French-speaking doctors, there would probably be a change in trend.
Dr. François: We’re looking at the issue of creating a quota. Here at the University of Manitoba, our goal is for students to receive additional training in language development. Are there different ways of delivering the clinical curriculum? One of the things we’re finding is that if, over a two-year period, there’s only one six-week primary care rotation in French, and all other rotations are in English, there may be fewer opportunities to use French.
We’re looking at a practicum model that would make family medicine longitudinal throughout the two years of training. Students would be more exposed to primary care and family medicine, which is a priority need for francophone populations, and they would have the advantage of using French every week, rather than on an ad hoc basis. For language acquisition and maintenance, this is a preferable strategy.
We look at admission, but also the type of curriculum so that these students can have experience that will better prepare them to practise their specialty.
The Chair: Thank you to both witnesses for participating in this part of the meeting.
[English]
Ms. Valenzuela, what was the last sentence in your presentation?
Ms. Valenzuela: By investing in these areas, we can ensure that all Canadians, regardless of their language, can better engage in their own health care, gain autonomy and feel the sense of dignity and respect we all deserve. Linguistic rights are human rights.
The Chair: Linguistic rights are human rights.
[Translation]
And with that, we will conclude this part of the meeting. Thank you both for your contribution, which will certainly help us further this study.
We’re going to break in order to prepare to welcome our next witnesses.
Colleagues, we now reconvene and welcome Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, to discuss the 2023–2024 Annual Report on official languages, as well as the committee’s new order of reference, that is, the content of the elements in Division 24 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, if the Commissioner may speak to that.
Welcome to the committee. You are accompanied by members of your staff. It’s always a pleasure to welcome you. The floor is yours, and then we’ll open it up for questions.
Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening, honourable members of the committee.
Before I begin, I’d like to acknowledge that the lands on which we are gathered are part of the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people, an Indigenous people of the Ottawa Valley. I’m pleased to be with you today to present my 2023–2024 Annual Report.
As you know, the modernization of the Official Languages Act in June 2023 marked the beginning of a new chapter not only in the history of official languages, but also in the history of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. After many months of work, the foundations for exercising my new powers are solidly in place. We’re now ready for action according to the timeline I unveiled when I tabled my annual report.
[English]
Therefore, between July and September 2024, I’ll begin offering federal institutions the opportunity to enter into a compliance agreement in order to resolve a complaint. Between December 2024 and February 2025, I will be able to formally issue orders to offending federal institutions to comply with the act.
With regard to administrative monetary penalties, I’ll be able to use this power once the government has issued a Governor-in-Council order and adopted regulations governing their terms and conditions. I know that the government is working on these elements right now, and my office and I will be ready when they are.
Furthermore, between June and August 2024, we’ll gradually begin offering a mediation service to complainants and federal institutions in order to try to find mutually acceptable solutions to the issues raised in complaints.
[Translation]
By July 2024, we’ll also be introducing a new investigation process that will enable us to serve the public as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Finally, by the end of March 2025, summaries of some of my investigations will be posted on our website. Of course, the upcoming changes will require a certain period of adjustment, both for the parties involved and for my team, which is why we plan to start gradually phasing in the use of these new tools with the funding we’ve been granted in the 2024 Budget.
[English]
It’s hard to say at this point whether this amount will be enough, though, because we don’t yet have all the details on the new Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act or on my new power to impose administrative monetary penalties. We’ll know more once they come into force. That said, let me be clear: my team and I are fully prepared to ensure greater respect for the public’s language rights.
As you probably noticed in my annual report, the 847 admissible complaints filed with my office in 2023-24 are a bit of a contrast to the very high volumes of complaints we’ve become accustomed to in recent years. Is this a trend that will continue over time? Unfortunately, I don’t have a crystal ball to help me answer these questions with any certainty. Only time will tell.
[Translation]
One thing is certain, though: This decrease doesn’t mean that we need to take our foot off the gas. Au contraire! We need to keep up the momentum and build on the progress we’ve made to effect concrete, lasting changes in order to secure the future of both of our official languages across the country. I’m counting on all federal institutions to step up their efforts to meet their language obligations, including the new ones in the modernized act.
Despite the fact that regulations have yet to be made, federal institutions still have new obligations that they’re required to meet right now, including those under Part VII of the act, which deals with advancing the equality of status and use of English and French.
[English]
Therefore, to help ensure compliance with Part VII, I’ve recently published a road map that is designed to be a practical tool to help federal institutions understand and meet their obligations and to help members of the public better understand their language rights. In my annual report, I recommend that by May 31, 2025, all deputy ministers and deputy heads in the federal public service incorporate into their strategic plan a plan for ensuring full implementation of Part VII of the act that draws from this road map which I put forward to support federal institutions. Although compliance with Part VII of the act does not depend on the development of regulations, they will set clearer parameters for federal institutions to fully and effectively meet their obligations.
[Translation]
Fortunately, things are moving forward. The federal government is currently developing instruments to support the implementation of the modernized act, including the Part VII regulations. I’m monitoring this file very closely and have recently released a position paper outlining the main principles that I believe should guide the development of the regulations.
Among the changes introduced in the modernized act is the requirement to review the act every 10 years to ensure that it remains in step with Canadian society as it evolves.
However, in order for this to happen, indicators need to be developed as quickly as possible to monitor the application of the act, track any changes in the issues at stake and propose solutions in a timely fashion.
[English]
In my annual report, I therefore recommend that, by June 2026, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, with the support of the President of the Treasury Board, develop and publish indicators for reviewing the provisions and operation of the act in preparation for the 10-year review in 2033.
As you’ll have noticed, this year I’m reporting on a period of change and transition in the world of official languages. Although we still have a lot of work to do to ensure better respect for the language rights of the public and of federal public servants, I think that it’s achievable. The progress we’ve made since the act was passed nearly 55 years ago is testament to this. Every success counts.
[Translation]
Because your committee begins its pre-study today, I’d like to turn to a few aspects of Bill C-69. As you know, this bill proposes certain changes to the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, which is part of An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages.
One of the main changes proposed in the bill is intended to allow me to exercise my investigative powers with respect to complaints received by current employees of federally regulated enterprises, as well as former and future employees.
In my opinion, this change will be beneficial because it will enable more employees of private companies under federal jurisdiction to work in French.
[English]
In studying these new provisions, I also noticed that the wording of the section dealing with the sending of my investigation reports would have the effect of preventing me from sending my investigation reports to complainants, which seems possibly unintentional. This section could be amended so that complainants, as well as executives from the organizations under investigation, receive my investigation reports.
Since the modernization of the act, we’ve been working to put in place a solid foundation to ensure a better future for our official languages. The modernized act is stronger and better adapted to today’s society. It represents a major step forward in protecting the public’s language rights and the vitality of our official language minority communities.
We need to seize this opportunity to ensure that the act is implemented fully, and we need to make concrete, lasting changes to improve the state of our official languages, both in the federal public service and in Canadian society as a whole.
[Translation]
By making sure that the act is reviewed thoroughly, implemented fully and supported by strong leadership from senior officials, we will help to build a future where members of the public have every opportunity to succeed in both official languages, and where federal public servants can finally feel free to work in the official language of their choice where the act applies.
Thank you for your attention. I’m now ready to answer your questions, which you’re welcome to ask in the official language of your choice.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Commissioner, for this rather positive and optimistic assessment of the future of the implementation of the Official Languages Act. Before turning the floor over to my colleagues, I’d like you to tell us more about the Part VII regulations. In fact, what we’re hearing from the communities is that they’re concerned about the delays in making regulations with regard to Part VII and also about the resources you have available.
Beyond what’s positive and great, what are your concerns at this point with regard to Part VII, which is so important for official language minority communities? At the same time, I’d like you to tell us what you know about the Centre for Strengthening of Part VII promised by the government. What is the role of this centre and what would be its responsibility? What can you tell us about your thoughts on this subject?
Mr. Théberge: You’re absolutely right that Part VII is a part of the act that aims to support the development and vitality of official language minority communities. The language used in Part VII of the new act is certainly much more rigorous and robust than that of the old act.
We specify what the positive measures are, we specify what we must do with impact studies and we specify that communities must be consulted. Part VII is already in force; what’s missing are the regulations, which, in my opinion, need to clarify a number of things. We need to clearly identify the steps involved in implementing positive measures. We need to focus on a consultation mechanism. There’s a lot of talk about “by and for”. All federal institutions have obligations with regard to Part VII.
When we were working on our position paper for Part VII, it wasn’t necessarily well understood by all federal institutions. This affects Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), for example, but the issue affects everyone, in fact, because almost all federal institutions work with communities. There was a lack of understanding and awareness. If that lack of understanding is still there, we can’t expect federal institutions to actively implement this law.
The government is committed to developing the regulations as quickly as possible. You’ll recall that in June of last year, we were talking about doing it in three years; now we’re talking about 18 months. Consultations are under way.
As I said earlier, we developed a position paper and a road map for federal institutions. The reason we did it is because we don’t want to wait. If you want some good ideas on how we see the implementation of Part VII, you can have a look at our road map, which provides some good information in relation to this issue, in addition to the position paper.
I can understand the communities’ concerns. We could have a regulation that is perhaps too broad and not prescriptive enough. Part VII identifies specific institutions. We talk about IRCC and the education continuum. We’ve even moved into the formal and informal world. In concrete terms, are there any resources to support this continuum in education?
The other important element of Part VII is the protection and promotion of French. Are there any programs in place to ensure the protection and promotion of French? The protection role of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has changed with the new act. The law now stipulates that we must promote and ensure compliance. In any case, the office has never had the resources to promote language rights across the country.
So there is work being done, and with some urgency. As for the Centre for Strengthening of Part VII, I think it received funding in the last budget, but it’s still pretty embryonic in terms of projects. Clearly, governance is needed for the implementation of Part VII, and I believe this centre could play an important role.
It’s important to remember that Canadian Heritage has decades of experience working with and for communities. So I think it’s a centre that’s well situated and all of that remains to be defined.
When it comes to the resources of the Commissioner’s office, let’s say that for the implementation of the new powers, I think we’re in a position to do it, but when we’re going to add others later on, that’s a question we’ll have to ask ourselves. Still…. We’re pleased to see that the government is supporting the prioritization of official languages with funding.
The Chair: Thank you, Commissioner.
Senator Moncion: My question relates to your recommendations. I believe they are in your annual report. You refer to recommendation number 2. It recommends that all deputy ministers and deputy heads incorporate into their strategic plans, by May 31, 2025, a plan for implementing Part VII of the act, in other words, about a year before the future regulatory framework comes into effect. That’s the first comment. In the second, you talk about an implementation plan for Part VII. I think you’re making suggestions to the various departments in your road map to get them to comply. How seriously is this taken by the various departments?
Mr. Théberge: By way of response, last week I met with all the deputy ministers in the federal apparatus to talk to them about Part VII, its implementation and the importance of properly articulating their obligations in relation to it. It’s often said that leadership starts at the top, and it’s extremely important that leadership be committed to Part VII. It’s hard to judge the impact, but one thing is clear: Now everyone and every deputy minister is aware of Part VII and their obligations. What I’ve heard is that the issue is taken seriously. We’re often asked to give information sessions on compliance — and we do.
In addition, the federal public service has embarked on a process of renewing a code of values and ethics, on which a lot of work has been done to ensure that official languages are part of it. Official languages are now at the heart of this code of values and ethics. When we talk about the strategic plan, we have to integrate official languages throughout the organization, not just in one unit — often it’s human resources.
Several years ago, studies were carried out on what is known as the “official language maturity model”. We found that the official languages were not integrated into all of the institution’s functions. The message we’re sending is that official languages are not something you do on the corner of a desk. They’re part of the organization. So we’re starting to raise awareness and educate at the highest possible level. We’re talking about committed, enlightened leadership.
I’ll be quite honest: If we don’t have that commitment from leadership, I’m not convinced there will be good implementation. It will be important to get the message out often, to keep an eye on implementation, and to push the government to adopt regulations as soon as possible. We need to be very specific in identifying our expectations.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for your reply. You reassure me on certain aspects in the sense that you talk about a coaching and training process. You talk about performance indicators that you’ll be able to see at some point. I also like to hear that it has to become automatic to think about bilingualism and to think about francophones and anglophones in all components.
I’ll give you an example. At one point, the Infrastructure Bank of Canada was created and they posted positions. They didn’t indicate that bilingual staff were needed to do the job. It wasn’t something that was thought of; it happened afterwards.
I think measuring performance indicators and tracking will be important. To what extent do you think departments will give you performance indicators, and how will you be able to track this famous progress?
Mr. Théberge: We’re at the beginning of the exercise, so I’m optimistic. I may change my mind next week, but I’m optimistic. It’s important to have an accountability framework. Treasury Board has an important role to play in developing an accountability framework for all federal institutions.
It’s important to mention that, often, the will exists, but the know-how isn’t necessarily always there — the how. When I said earlier that we need to integrate this into all functions of the organization, that’s the only way it’s going to become part of the organization’s culture.
In the official languages maturity model we used in the past, there are some very good indicators we can use. Several federal institutions have gone through the exercise. In fact, we’ve shared the tool with the Treasury Board Secretariat, which is interested in it. If we adopt a similar tool, I think it would be really beneficial for monitoring implementation.
In our role at the Office of the Commissioner, we have our perspective on how things should work, which is not necessarily the same as some federal institutions. On the other hand, I’d say we have expertise that we can share with federal institutions. We’ve been working in this field for over 50 years. We’ve received over 70,000 complaints. We understand how it all works.
I think we shouldn’t overlook the fact that we have a new linguistic regime. When you have a new language regime, it’s time to see how you can make it work. Under the old system, we had the same number of complaints, but the behaviour of federal institutions didn’t change. Now, with the tools we have, maybe we can succeed.
That said, we’re at the beginning of the process and we have to try to have a positive approach.
Senator Moncion: I am the sponsor of Bill C-59 and I have met with all the staff at the Department of Finance. I can tell you that all the public servants made their presentations in French, from the first to the last. I was blown away and had them all practising their French that day. I thought it was fantastic. I thought to myself that very often, we don’t know that the staff are bilingual. They often only address us in one language, the one they’re most comfortable in, but I’ll tell you there were about 40 of them that all spoke to me in French.
Mr. Théberge: What you’re saying has a lot to do with what I call language insecurity. A lot of people have a second language that they don’t want to use for all sorts of reasons, but they’re capable of doing so. We need to create conditions where people aren’t afraid to use their second language and even, in some cases, their mother tongue. It’s important to apply pressure.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Just to counterbalance things a bit, I sit on another committee where we’re currently hosting senior federal government officials who don’t feel it’s appropriate to have someone on their team who can address us in French. They accept questions in French, but answer only in English. You can see from this that there’s still work to be done, and that your optimism will be transformed into great energy. It’s going to transform our federal institutions and the people who work in them.
Senator Audette: I too still have hope.
[Innu-Aimun spoken] and thank you so much for being with us. This is my first official meeting as a member of this important committee.
On the Indigenous languages side, we talk about the Indigenous Languages Commissioner and organizations that are created by the federal government, but they are only English-speaking. My first language is French, my second language is Innu-Aimun, and my third is English.
As part of this new regime or accountability, how could you remind the federal government that there are First Peoples who did not choose French, even if they had to? Yet we can’t even be served in French by these federal institutions designed for Indigenous peoples.
Mr. Théberge: That’s an excellent question. The number of Indigenous people who speak French is underestimated, even within the federal government. In my opinion, there’s a belief that we all speak English. So there’s work to be done.
I’ve had conversations with Commissioner Ignace about the many challenges he faces in promoting, valuing and revitalizing Indigenous languages. The important message to convey and get across is the fact that a large number of Indigenous people speak French.
We did a study on diversity. We always say that it’s difficult to find bilingual candidates to fill certain positions, because they don’t reflect diversity. The Francophonie has become very diverse. Over 200,000 Indigenous people speak French in Canada. The phenomenon is regionalized, but where I come from in Manitoba, many members of the Métis nation speak Michif. Yet there’s a perception that everyone speaks English.
The important message is that there are French-speaking people and communities who deserve to be served in the official language of their choice, even if they speak an Indigenous language.
Senator Audette: So, people can go to you to file a complaint, or you can apply pressure?
Mr. Théberge: I prefer to apply pressure.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for being with us, Commissioner, along with your guests. I wanted to talk about complaints, so this is good timing.
Regarding refusal to investigate, the document says that the Commissioner may refuse or cease to investigate any complaint if, in their opinion, the complaint was not made within a reasonable time.
What do you consider a reasonable time? Is it the deadline in Bill C-13 or some other deadline? It was one year.
Mr. Théberge: It’s a deadline we chose for very practical reasons. First of all, once a year has passed, in many cases, we can’t get the information. It’s gone. We have two deadlines: one year and six months. The six-month deadline is for parts IV and V; the one-year deadline is for part VII.
As I said earlier, if we want to be able to conduct serious investigations, we need information and access to information. For example, when we’re dealing with the Canada Border Services Agency, there are lots of records and interactions with “clients”, but the information is kept for only a few weeks, and then it disappears. It’s important to gather information. Based on our experience, most people submit complaints within a reasonable time. It’s rare for a complaint to be submitted two years after the fact.
Senator Mégie: Thank you. I have another question about protecting official language rights, specifically the GBA+ analysis that was done on that. It’s about a sentence that strikes me as ambiguous. I would like to hear what you think. I won’t read the whole long paragraph, just the part that intrigues me. The study says that official language minority communities tend to include a disproportionate — that word bothers me — a larger number of newcomers and Black and racialized people.
How do you interpret that? Where it says “disproportionate”, does that mean people who don’t belong there but who were included?
Mr. Théberge: Which document are you talking about?
Senator Mégie: It’s from Statistics Canada, and it’s about the GBA+ analysis that was sent to us.
The Chair: On the budget?
Senator Mégie: Yes.
The Chair: In the budget bill.
Mr. Théberge: I haven’t seen that study.
Senator Mégie: It’s a Statistics Canada study.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Mégie: Can I send it to you?
Mr. Théberge: Of course. Which part is it?
Senator Mégie: It’s the part about protecting official language rights, especially the impact on quality of life.
The Chair: In the study that goes with the budget bill.
Senator Mégie: It goes with Bill C-69.
Mr. Théberge: If it’s a Statistics Canada study, I wouldn’t be able to dispute their numbers. If I understand the paragraph correctly, recent francophone immigration, especially in francophone communities outside Quebec, is largely made up of newcomers and immigrants from countries in West Africa and North Africa. I get the impression the statement refers to that group.
Senator Mégie: Because there are more French speakers, they invade more?
Mr. Théberge: There are a lot of conversations happening about immigration. Under part VII of the Act, IRCC is supposed to table a francophone immigration plan that the department developed in January. I think an important part of that immigration plan is searching for potential immigrants wherever they’re at.
Senator Mégie: Thank you. If you ever have other thoughts about this document, would you please send them to the clerk in writing?
Mr. Théberge: Yes.
The Chair: Very good.
Senator Aucoin: I’m from a minority francophone community, so I looked at the number of complaints. There were 847 complaints in 2023-24. That number was down 50%. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but you yourself admitted that, in the past, the results and the number of complaints for each department didn’t necessarily change anything. How can we here at the Senate committee and people in minority francophone communities be as optimistic as you about the fact that the new sanctions and the Commissioner’s new powers will bring about a real attitude shift and produce results? It’s not just the attitude that needs to change. We need to see results and changes that will benefit our minority communities.
Mr. Théberge: Before Bill C-13, the commissioner would receive a complaint, investigate and make a recommendation. Implementation of the recommendation depended on the goodwill of the federal institution. Now, with Bill C-13, we will have a new investigation process that will be akin to a highway. We receive a complaint, then we can go to mediation to resolve the problem quickly. We can also enter into a compliance agreement with deadlines while specifying the results. If the compliance agreement is not respected, we can issue orders, like the courts do. So the mechanisms are much stronger.
Later on, with the possibility of imposing financial penalties — we will have to wait for the regulations — this will be an even stronger mechanism.
So, we now have tools. I want to use them, but I’d also like to see a change in attitude. Coercion alone is not enough to bring about change, but it’s useful to have these tools in our tool box to encourage changes in behaviour.
As I mentioned earlier, very often federal institutions do implement recommendations, but we get another complaint later because the organization hasn’t changed anything. I would like to think that, with this new language regime, with the compliance mechanisms and the new obligations required of federal institutions, this will help us ensure better compliance.
Senator Aucoin: You talk about the use of mediation and you have published investigation summaries. Could this mean that you could periodically, continually or in a more expeditious manner publish the outcome of the mediation, the complaint and the penalties, and that all of that would be public and done within a very reasonable time frame following the conclusion of the process?
Mr. Théberge: The publication of investigation summaries has an educational value; it is also a matter of transparency. We are not going to publish all the investigation summaries because some are repeated. These summaries add to the understanding of the official languages issue, not only for the public, but also for federal institutions.
As far as mediation goes — both parties have to agree — there are a number of situations that could be easily resolved through mediation. If it’s a problem with a sign, the sign is changed. It’s not like that for all complaints. At the end of the day, we want to ensure better compliance and we’re going to use the best tool to achieve that.
Before, we didn’t have any tools, but now we have a selection of tools that we can use. This will encourage better compliance by federal institutions.
Senator Clement: Thank you for being with us and for the road map; it’s a tool that’s well constructed to encourage a path forward, and that’s great.
I also thank you for mentioning in your report the names of two Supreme Court justices, Justices Jamal and O’Bonsawin, who are truly inspiring examples of bilingualism — they are trilingual, to boot. It’s good of them to give us a bit of inspiration.
I have a question about complaints and their decreasing number. You said it was difficult to predict what will happen. Why do you think there are fewer and fewer complaints? I know you have the director of investigations with you. There can’t be just one reason for that, but rather several reasons, and I imagine you’re analyzing that.
Mr. Théberge: Two years ago, when we received 5,000 complaints, certain events occurred, including a speech by Air Canada.
On the other hand, high-profile events often lead to complaints in other areas because people are aware.
The following year, we received a significant number of complaints, but there was no specific cause. This year, the most important thing that happened in the world of official languages was the passing of Bill C-13, and that’s a positive thing. We can’t be against the passage of this bill.
However, when we analyze the complaints, it’s always the travelling public that files the most complaints. There are fewer complaints, but the proportion remains the same. So the complaints are always about Air Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, and so on. There are all sorts of reasons for this.
As I said earlier, is this the start of a new trend or is it an anomaly? The fact that there is better compliance from federal institutions could be good news. Before confirming or denying this trend, we’ll wait a year or two to see if it happens again.
I was surprised; on the other hand, this year there were far more positives than negatives in the environment because of Bill C-13.
I don’t know if Mr. Wolfe would like to add anything.
Patrick Wolfe, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance and Enforcement Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: No, you’ve covered the issue. There’s the travelling public and the language of work, which always comes second in the type of complaints we receive. We asked ourselves the same question internally. We’re taking a closer look at these trends to get some answers in the coming years.
Mr. Théberge: With regard to the language of work, there is an increase, not a decrease. This is still a major issue for the federal government. It has an impact on service delivery and communication with the public. There is some complexity around the issue of linguistic insecurity and the linguistic review of positions, but over time, there is an increase in complaints concerning the language of work.
Senator Clement: I was visiting Yellowknife this year with some groups, including francophones; it’s always nice to meet a healthy francophonie in Yellowknife.
I see in some of the tables in the report that there are fewer complaints. Are you reviewing the awareness campaigns in terms of the services provided? Sometimes people don’t know exactly what to do or what’s available. They’re also new francophones, in a new country.
Mr. Théberge: We often give workshops through our regional offices. Right now in Manitoba, a number of workshops are being held in communities to explain the new legislation and explain what the rights are.
The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages does not have the resources to educate all Canadians about their language rights. However, we have done that for a long time in accordance with our means.
It’s very interesting; I was at a banquet in Edmonton, and the person who was speaking remembered that, in fourth grade, someone had come and mentioned that you can file complaints with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. There is a need to raise awareness, and this is done not only through the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, but also through promotional campaigns. Major promotional campaigns have been launched in the past; perhaps it’s time to look at doing that again, since we have a new language regime. With a new language regime, we have the opportunity to do that promotion.
Next year, when I come back with my next report, we’ll see if we still have the same figures. Bernard Derome always said, “if the trend continues.” So, if the trend continues, we’ll talk about it again next year.
Senator Clement: I will ask you the same questions again.
Mr. Théberge: Excellent.
The Chair: If the trend continues, we remember the lack of consistency between Part IV, which deals with the provision of services, and Part V, which deals with the language of work. Do you think the new piece of legislation has solved the problem? If not, what do you suggest to enable the federal government to align the obligations of federal offices, and thus provide services in both official languages to those located in a region designated bilingual for language-of-work purposes? There is a lack of consistency, and you are telling me that the problem has not been solved. The lack of consistency is a major problem. What can be done? What should the government do?
Mr. Théberge: Not only is there inconsistency, but when I meet some employees of federal institutions, they are well aware that they will have to increase the number of service points. They wonder how they will manage to do it.
There will be 600 new service points. In the regulations, there are areas that were traditionally francophone but are now less so. We have new francophone regions because of migration and immigration. All of this will be arranged under Part IV of the regulations.
There is also the content of section 91 of the Official Languages Act, dealing with properly assessing the language requirements of positions to ensure that the people occupying those positions meet the language requirements.
The challenge is often that the capacity to deliver services in both official languages is not there. That must be planned for. An action plan is needed. There will be many new points of service that didn’t exist before.
We’re also talking about having, in terms of supervision, higher requirements in relation to the CBC level than they are currently. This is an extraordinary opportunity to ensure better implementation of the legislation, but there is a question of capacity that needs to be built within the apparatus.
The Chair: I read a report on section 91 in 2020. Have you published a follow-up to the recommendations you made?
Mr. Théberge: Yes, that’s planned. Mr. Wolfe and his colleagues are following up with stakeholders. We will certainly publish the follow-ups in relation to section 91.
It’s often the insiders who understand section 91 —
The Chair: It’s about language skills, right?
Mr. Théberge: It’s a fundamental provision. Section 91 says that the language requirements of a position must be established objectively. Very often, this is not done objectively; it’s done on the basis of who’s there and who’s not. You need X, Y or Z. A job is supposed to be filled on an imperative basis. The person has to comply with the requirements, but often there is non‑imperative staffing, which has an impact on the capacity to provide a service.
There is some alignment to be done between Part IV and Part V.
The Chair: Thank you. I’m going to give the floor to Senator Moncion, who will be followed by Senator Aucoin. Commissioner, I know you’re enthusiastic in your answers, but I’m going to take the liberty of asking you to be succinct, as we have a lot of questions around the table.
I’d like to ask one last question. I know that a complaint has been filed about the cap on study permits. For information purposes, can you tell us under which section of the Official Languages Act this complaint is admissible?
Mr. Théberge: Under Part VII.
The Chair: Can you tell us how long your investigation will last? We have begun a study on this subject, and the commissioner’s recommendations and views are of great interest to us.
Mr. Théberge: Mr. Wolfe?
Mr. Wolfe: This is certainly an investigation that we’ve prioritized and we want to see it move forward. You’ll understand that we’re not the only ones conducting investigations. We have to investigate, and sometimes there’s a back and forth that takes longer. Normally, within a few months, we’d like to at least produce a preliminary report without going into detail about how it works.
I can’t tell you how many months it will take, but I can assure you it’s one of our priorities and we’ll get it done as quickly as possible.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: I want to talk about Bill C-69. You said something important toward the end of your presentation.
[English]
You said that it would have the effect of preventing the report from being sent to the complainant, and you said that this section could be amended.
[Translation]
Did I understand correctly what you said about the bill?
Mr. Théberge: Currently, it depends on how it’s interpreted. The investigation report cannot be sent to the complainant. Historically, the office of the commissioner always sent the report to the complainant, unless the complaint was anonymous. I don’t know whether this was intentional or not. It’s a matter of transparency. If you make a complaint, you want to know what happened, but it depends on how that passage is interpreted.
That’s how we see it.
Senator Moncion: There’s another part, as the proposed fixes don’t seem to be a problem. That’s my understanding. If you only mentioned this problem, is it because what is proposed to us is suitable?
Mr. Théberge: Yes.
Senator Moncion: You talk about amendments. It’s extremely difficult for us to make amendments to bills like this. Have you made any representations to the officials in charge of Bill C-69 to ask that this part perhaps be amended in another way?
Mr. Wolfe: If I may, we have had informal discussions recently with those responsible for the bill. We can agree that, depending on our interpretation of the provision in question, it may be confusing. However, we don’t necessarily have the same interpretation of the provision.
Senator Moncion: You’ve answered my next question: What kind of openness was there? I think we’ll have to discuss that, as it could be an important issue.
The Chair: If I understand correctly, Senator Moncion, this is not the subject we will be considering this afternoon.
Senator Moncion: In this part of Bill C-69, their response is that what is presented is appropriate, but other things could be addressed. It’s the words “other things” that I got hung up on.
Senator Aucoin: With respect to private companies under federal jurisdiction, what is the attitude that you have noticed so far? Without going into too much detail, is there openness in this area? In the past, it was more nebulous.
Mr. Théberge: We are at the regulatory stage. We need a decree before the legislation can be implemented. Work is under way on the regulations. There are a lot of definitions to be clarified when we talk about these companies: What is an employee? What is a region with a strong francophone presence? What is a client? A lot of terms need to be clarified.
For the moment, we haven’t really looked into it. We’re waiting for the consultation process to see what kind of regulations we want to adopt for this part of the legislation. Some advocate that it should mirror the Charter of the French Language.
I think we need to have solid regulations in order to have a very rigorous application. We have to agree on this: We’re talking about the private sector, and my office, with the exception of Air Canada and VIA Rail, does not work with the private sector. It’s a new world; it remains to be seen how we will deal with this new reality.
The Chair: What are your concerns in that regard?
Mr. Théberge: My concerns revolve very much around the definition of the words “region with a strong francophone presence.” It can mean different things to different people, depending on where they’re from.
Senator Moncion: [Technical difficulties] with a strong anglophone presence?
Mr. Théberge: This is for all of Quebec. There’s not a strong anglophone presence; it’s for all of Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Yes, I know.
The Chair: Do you have any suggestions for the federal government on criteria for determining what a region with a strong francophone presence is?
Mr. Théberge: When we begin the consultation process, we will certainly have suggestions to make on that.
The Chair: Commissioner, Mr. Giguère, Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Leduc, thank you very much for appearing before us. As always, it was enlightening and also a bit challenging. It forces us to remain active and present on the issues surrounding the implementation of this new, modernized legislation.
Thank you very much and we look forward to seeing you again.
You will be publishing a second report in the autumn on communities. Can you tell us a bit about it? It’s an important element and a novelty that you’re producing two reports.
Mr. Théberge: I’ll be very quick. The new legislation stipulates that the format of the annual report must focus on compliance. In the past, we always had a component on communities. This year, we’ve decided to respect what’s written in the legislation. However, we will be producing a separate document on the state of the communities. Through regional representatives, in particular, we are monitoring the issues in the communities. We will then prepare a document for September or October and make it public.
The Chair: There will surely be a connection to the regulations for the application of Part VII, as it affects communities, right?
Mr. Théberge: Yes.
The Chair: We will be looking forward to this with great excitement.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
The Chair: Dear colleagues, for our third panel of witnesses, we will proceed with the pre-study of Bill C-69, specifically Division 24 of Part 4 of the bill.
To do that, we have as witnesses Sarah Boily, Director General, Official Languages, Canadian Heritage, and Marcel Fallu, Manager, Official Languages. Welcome to the committee. We’ll hear your preliminary remarks so that you can enlighten us on this amendment. We will then proceed to questions from senators.
The floor is yours, Ms. Boily.
Sarah Boily, Director General, Official Languages, Canadian Heritage: Good evening, honourable senators. I’m delighted to be here, along with an expert, my colleague Marcel Fallu, to provide a more in-depth explanation of the correction being proposed in Bill C-69.
As you already mentioned, Division 24 of Part 4 would amend section 61 of An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, which would in turn amend subsection 19(1) of the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act.
Basically, the act as drafted gives employees, as well as former and potential employees, the right to file a complaint with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and to seek a legal remedy if they feel that their rights under the new Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act were violated.
Those rights are referred to in relation to the coming into force of the regime for federally regulated private businesses in Quebec. Slightly further down, the coming into force provisions for regions with a strong francophone presence — which we will be defining by regulation — contain an omission. The right is available only to employees. The reference to former and potential employees was omitted in that case. The correction in Bill C-69 ensures that the right is available to all three categories of employees, both in federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence.
The Chair: Thank you. That was pretty clear. I will turn the floor over to my fellow senators in a moment, but as I understand it, an omission was made, so a correction is needed to align subsections 18(1.1) and 18(1.2) and section 16. Basically, that’s the issue. You touched on this, but what would happen if the amendment wasn’t made?
Ms. Boily: It would have a real impact. If the amendment wasn’t made, it would mean that, after the second anniversary of the regime’s coming into force in Quebec, those rights would no longer be available to those two categories of employees, former and potential employees, or to employees of federally regulated private businesses in Quebec. The way the provision is drafted, the right is available for only two years, such that two years later, it would no longer be available in Quebec or in federally regulated private businesses in regions with a strong francophone presence. In practical terms, it would mean that a potential employee could not file a complaint with the Commissioner of Official languages or seek a legal remedy, and that would be a problem.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Mégie: Does the definition of a “potential employee” include someone who would qualify to apply for a position but hasn’t done so yet? If they have yet to apply, how do you know whether they are eligible under the act?
Ms. Boily: A potential employee refers to someone who has a demonstrable interest in the position. Any potential applicant has the right to have a job posting that lists the skills required for the position and the conditions of employment. If that information wasn’t available to those potential employees in French, they could file a complaint. That is how we would know who they were. We wouldn’t know who they were exactly, but we would know there was a problem.
Senator Mégie: All right. Thank you.
Senator Moncion: You said that the proposed amendment to Division 24 of Part 4 would ensure that all employees of federally regulated private businesses in Quebec or regions with a strong francophone presence — whether they are current, former or potential employees — could file a complaint and seek a legal remedy if the business violated their language of work rights, as set out in the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act. My question has to do with former employees. Does the act prescribe a deadline for former employees to file such a complaint — 1 year, 2 years or 10 years, say?
Ms. Boily: I’m not sure whether the act includes any deadlines. I’m inclined to think that the Commissioner of Official Languages is the master of his own procedure. When he was speaking earlier, he mentioned the six-month and one-year deadlines that had been agreed upon for parts IV and VII of the act. I think it may be up to him to determine the deadline.
Marcel Fallu, Manager, Official Languages, Canadian Heritage: Ms. Boily is right when it comes to complaints relating to the language of communications with consumers. There is no deadline in that case. However, when it comes to language of work complaints, a limitation or prescription period is set out in subsection 18(2), and it’s 90 days. Therefore, it would be the same for current employees, people with a demonstrable interest in a position and former employees. The complainant has 90 days after becoming aware of the act or omission or after the day on which the complainant ought to have become aware of the act or omission, in the commissioner’s opinion.
The reason for the limitation on language of work complaints in federally regulated private businesses is that the employer-employee relationship falls strictly within the private sphere. That is why, when it comes to language of work in federally regulated private businesses, complaints are subject to more limitations than they would be in relation to consumers’ rights or the Official Languages Act, which stipulates that anyone can file a complaint. That’s not a change being introduced in Bill C-69. It really has to do with Bill C-13 — because of the omission, a reference that should have been included in section 61 wasn’t.
Senator Moncion: Thank you. Here’s my second question. You were here when we discussed the matter. I tried to get a bit more information on where things stood. I believe the explanation I got was that the new section didn’t exist in the previous legislation and was being introduced in this act. Currently, when someone files a complaint with the commissioner, he can provide a copy of the complaint or analysis to the complainant. It was explained that subsection 19(4) includes the word “only,” but subsection 19(2) doesn’t, so there’s a discrepancy between the two. I realize that it won’t necessarily be the subject of an amendment, but I just want to understand the thinking behind not providing a copy of the review of the complaint to the complainant who filed the complaint.
Ms. Boily: First of all, the commissioner is meant to have the same latitude under the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act as he does under the Official Languages Act, with two or three minor exceptions. The idea is to ensure that the commissioner can continue to share his investigation reports with complainants, under both the federal institutions regime and the federally regulated private businesses regime.
Today, the commissioner was kind enough to flag a potential error his office identified. We’ve looked at it briefly, so this is very preliminary information. We are going to take the issue back to our team and ask them to examine it more closely. At first glance, it seems to be a misinterpretation, but that doesn’t mean an improvement isn’t warranted. There may be an opportunity to make that improvement. The Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act refers to the application of two subsections in the Official Languages Act, whereby for the purposes of those two subsections, the commissioner must make a report only to the chief executive officer of the federally regulated private business.
Under the two subsections of the Official Languages Act being referred to, the commissioner may provide a report to the President of the Treasury Board. The amendment, which applies only to those subsections, would distinguish between providing the report to the President of the Treasury Board and the leadership of the federally regulated private business. In no way does that take away the commissioner’s power to share the report with complainants. Nevertheless, there will be a number of opportunities to improve the language in the act along the way. Obviously, that won’t be possible through Bill C-69, but if confusion arises and clearer language is needed, that is certainly something that could be considered.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
The Chair: I take it that there is still room for improvement in the Official Languages Act, and that’s entirely appropriate. I want to try to summarize the comments we’ve heard and the questions that have been asked. The basis for the proposed amendment in this case is that something that should’ve been included was omitted. That wasn’t the legislator’s intent. It was a drafting oversight that could have been addressed at some point but wasn’t. It was actually raised in the Senate, and we’re glad that it was at the time. This is simply about addressing that omission and amending section 16 to bring everything in line with subsection 18(1).
What the amendment in Division 24 of Part 4 does is ensure that all employees of federally regulated private businesses in Quebec or regions with a strong francophone presence — whether they are current, former or potential employees — have the right to file a complaint and seek a legal remedy, as necessary, against the business violating their language of work rights. That’s the rationale here. Is there any other relevant information you can give us, since we’ll be referring to this panel’s comments and sharing that information?
Ms. Boily: You summed it up nicely. Thank you very much and thank you to Senator Quinn for flagging the omission, because it would have had undesirable consequences.
The Chair: Absolutely. Now there is an opportunity to make that improvement. Thank you for appearing before the committee. Since there are no further questions, we will suspend the meeting and resume in camera. Thank you very much.
(The committee continued in camera.)