April 11th 2016 - Study on the application of the Official Languages Act and the regulations and directives made under it - Various Witnesses

Senator Poirier: I would like to thank our two witnesses. We are pleased to welcome you once again. It has been quite some time since last we met, Ms. d'Entremont. I would like to ask both of our witnesses some questions, after which, I will have another question regarding New Brunswick, specifically.

As you know, the 150th anniversary of Confederation will soon be upon us. I wonder if you have been consulted with regard to event planning or celebration. What do you expect from the celebrations, especially as they relate to Acadians and Franco-Ontarians?

Ms. d'Entremont: I have not been consulted.

Senator Poirier: Have you reached any agreements? What will happen in the Acadie region?

Ms. d'Entremont: I simply do not know. I have not been consulted. I do not know who is responsible for the consultations. Have they been to New Brunswick? I do not know if it has been discussed with the government. I have not been involved in the initiative.

Mr. Boileau: No one has been consulted in Ontario. In my opinion, the Office of Francophone Affairs should be consulted on the matter. As far as I am concerned, I expect the 150th celebrations to reflect Canadian values, especially with regard to linguistic duality. The festivities need to demonstrate respect for francophone minorities and official languages. I sincerely hope that the festivities will be celebrated at the local level, so that every community can play an active role in celebrating their country. The festivities should not be limited to Ottawa. All of the festivities, be they in Ottawa, other large cities or elsewhere, should, without question, reflect our linguistic duality. We need to ensure proper planning of the celebrations from the get-go in order to do justice to the history of francophone communities. This is a golden opportunity for Canadians to remember who they are, to recognize their distinct identity and their linguistic duality, and to understand what it truly means to be Canadian.

Senator Poirier: In your opinion, what are the most pressing official languages issues?

Ms. d'Entremont: I think that it is important to promote our recommendations and follow up on them. In 2013-14, we conducted a study on bilingual positions and language training. I continue to promote these recommendations. The study focused on several factors. In New Brunswick, we do not apply the same strict requirements as at the federal level. There are no designated positions. We must take stricter measures for bilingual positions. I continue to raise awareness about the importance of these recommendations among political leaders and public servants. When a bilingual position is posted, we do not specify the language skills required. In my opinion, this recommendation should be implemented, because the lack of clarification can be confusing. Some candidates mistakenly think that they are not qualified for a bilingual position because they are not aware of the requirements. In short, these candidates disqualify themselves because of the lack of clarity regarding the required skill levels. I seize every single opportunity to highlight how important it is to follow through with these recommendations.

Last year, I made recommendations concerning senior officials. These senior managers are the ones who must provide leadership. This is not yet the case in New Brunswick. According to our study, only 49 per cent of managers in the public service are bilingual. In an officially bilingual province like New Brunswick, one would expect a greater proportion of bilingual staff at senior levels. In my opinion, it is important to continue pushing for these recommendations, promoting linguistic duality, and trying to influence political decision makers and those in the public service. Substantial recommendations have been made. The entire system has been reviewed. I think we could improve things by following through on these recommendations.

This year, over the next two or three months, we will be releasing our next annual report. We will be making other recommendations that I cannot discuss today. Every time we propose major recommendations, further to studies of the entire system, it is important to continue discussing them so that they are not forgotten from one year to the next.

Senator Poirier: Have all your recommendations been favorably received since 2014?

Ms. d'Entremont: The recommendations from the 2013-14 annual report date back to the former government and the transition period. We published the annual report in June. After that, the election campaign was launched and the new government came to power in the fall. We intend to restart discussions and to request an account of the progress that has been made. To my knowledge, no measures have been adopted. The recommendations proposed last year have not been implemented, which is disappointing. However, we will continue to bring them up.

The Chair: Mr. Boileau, do you have a question for Senator Poirier?

Mr. Boileau: The priority issues are the same in terms of health, education, immigration, access to justice and public services. These are areas that are all interconnected. Over the past eight years, we have written several annual reports and investigation reports, which were all well-received overall. We have gotten remarkable results from the provincial government on some of our recommendations. The dialogue with the provincial government is advancing. My own office gained independence from the government on January 1, 2014. I now report directly to the Legislative Assembly. I have become an officer of the Assembly. Of course, these are positive changes. We published a special report on French-language health services planning. It was well-received, and there were positive changes made that reflected our recommendations.

We made recommendations, for example, about the lack of post-secondary programs offered in French in Central- Southwestern Ontario. In this region, we found that the rate of access to French-language post-secondary education ranged from 0 per cent to 3 per cent, in comparison with the proportion of programs offered in English. That ignited a bit of a fire. An important discussion is now taking shape; it is a discussion that was dormant for the last 40 years but is now re-emerging, with talk of creating a French-language university in Ontario. This is the type of debate that I have been very happy to see between the community and the government, and we played a small role in that.

There is a lack of French-language schools in the Greater Toronto Area. We had recommended that the government provide funding for ten new schools, and we received funding for nine. This is a step in the right direction, but there are still shortcomings.

Certain regulations were not amended as I would have hoped, and so it is possible that I will revisit this issue over the coming weeks. I would like to be able to answer you, but I do not want to say too much. The coming months are going to be quite busy, with many reports being published, including our annual report.

It is important to understand that there is a law in force in Ontario governing services provided in French. Its name is rather telling, the French Language Services Act. It has been 30 years since the law was passed. If we compare it with the federal Official Languages Act, which has around 100 sections, our law has only 14. We stretched things almost to the breaking point, and I think that was a successful approach for Ontario. We do not have the same proportion of francophones as New Brunswick and we do not have the same status. So we try to do what we can with the means at our disposal. I do, however, think that we have accomplished a lot for a population that represents 4.8 per cent of the population as a whole, in other words, 611,000 people, many more than in all the other provinces combined.

As far as the percentage of the population is concerned, this is not a population that is as large as that of New Brunswick; the power dynamics are thus not the same. However, we need to think of the progress that has been made. Allow me to give you an example. Thirty years ago, having a licence plate in French in Ontario would have been unthinkable; it would have led to a riotous debate. Today, it seems perfectly ordinary, and that is what I would hope for: that there not be a debate, that the issue of French be depoliticized, and that it be normal to provide services in French to the population. I think that we are getting there, little by little.

------

Senator Poirier: I just have one question, and it also concerns Commissioner Fraser's appearance a couple of week ago. In late February, the government introduced Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act. As it stands right now, adults aged 18 to 64 must demonstrate knowledge of Canada and of one of the two official languages. Bill C-6, however, would reduce the maximum age by 10 years. In other words, those aged 55 and over would no longer need to know one of the two official languages. If the bill is not amended, the proposed measure will become the law of the land.

In your opinion, would such a change have an impact on francophone and Acadian communities in New Brunswick and Ontario? Most 55-year-old Canadians are still in the workforce. Under this bill, these people would no longer need to know one of the two official languages. I would like to hear your opinion on the subject.

Ms. d'Entremont: I have very few statistics to support an opinion on this subject. In New Brunswick, the situation is probably different from that of Ontario. Very few people speak neither of the province's two official languages. When immigrants arrive, of course, they choose to integrate into one community or the other. As such, I cannot say that this is an issue that our office has studied. Very few people in New Brunswick do not speak either of the province's official languages. I will stop there.

Mr. Boileau: I read the transcripts of your meeting with my colleague Commissioner Fraser with great interest and I was hoping that you would not ask that question. I will tell you, quite frankly, that a commissioner's first responsibility is to be rigorous. We cannot simply say what we think about anything and everything. Our statements must be well- founded. In this case, we have not analyzed or studied the bill. It would thus be difficult to render an opinion on the matter — which appears to be important — without having studied it.

Senator Poirier: I appreciate your answer. Personally, I find the measure troubling. I think that we should take a closer look at it in an effort to understand its impact. The fact that people will come to Canada, wanting to become Canadian citizens, and not need to know one of our two official languages is something that will be very interesting to keep an eye on.

< Back to: Questions in Official Languages Committee