Commissariat aux services en français | French Language Services Commissioner

Yesterday, I had the chance to visit the beautiful County Galway in the West Region of Ireland to meet with our fellow counterparts at the Office of An Coimisinéir Teanga [Office of the Language Commissioner] of Ireland. Their offices are beautiful and, not to mention, have a breathtaking view of the sea. No wonder most of the desks have their back facing the windows; one can’t help but daydream all day in such a setting!
 
That said, there are many similarities between Ireland and Ontario’s Francophone population. In terms of figures, there are approximately 700 000 citizens who consider Irish as their maternal language. Ontario consists of over 600 000 French speakers. The only exception is proportion, since the total population of Ireland is around four million people, which means roughly 18% of the population considers Irish to be their maternal language. 
 
Their offices and budgets are essentially the same as ours. They have six employees working alongside the Commissioner; we have six people on our team altogether. Their budget is lower, but in Euros, it’s just about equivalent.
 
But the similarities end there. The Irish Language Commissioner was appointed directly by the President and reports to two chambers. In my case, as you know, I report solely to the Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs. In Ireland, they have a law for official languages, as is the case in Canada, but they don’t have laws at the provincial level.

Indeed, Ireland is divided into counties and provinces. However, it is the counties which serve the local administration. Some big cities reserve the same amount of autonomy for decision-making as the counties, and they rely on their city councils.
 
Another similarity is that their office was established in 2004 notably with the help of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada! Here in Ontario, on the other hand, our office was established in 2007. Seán Ó Cuirreáin is the first and the current Language Commissioner in Ireland, as he has always assumed the role. It is actually due to his invitation that we are here. I am very pleased to have met him. He told me that he also leant a big hand in the development and implementation of a similar office in Kosovo, whose representatives are also going to be present at the conference.
 
This means that governments are increasingly becoming aware that it is worthwhile to develop offices like ours in order to assist the population in preserving the minority language(s), helping to promote it, and most importantly, keeping it in the interest of the government to implement laws accordingly. In Ireland, they have received over 750 complaints in the past year alone!

 A few months ago, I made a commitment to review the various findings in the French Language Services Bench and Bar Advisory Committee’s report on Access to Justice in French. The purpose of the exercise was to explain the importance of this key report’s recommendations for Francophone litigants in Ontario, not only because the report in question implements the fourth recommendation in my 2008-2009 Annual Report, but also because the issues and solutions documented in the report are having or will have very concrete effects on the lives of our province’s Francophones.

As you know, in Ontario, French has the status of an official language in the courts. This status clearly implies that a citizen who wishes to be heard in French in the courts can appear before a judge who can understand and speak to the citizen without the assistance of an interpreter. But it goes much further than that: A citizen who chooses to use French in seeking justice in Ontario – whether it’s to contest a traffic ticket or claim damages after being assaulted – must have equal access, i.e., the same level of access as an Anglophone citizen.

For official-language minority litigants, that means, in particular, that they must be actively informed of their rights and how to exercise them; that their decision to exercise those rights must not be questioned (how many times have we in the Commissioner’s Office heard of instances in which a litigant has been told, “But you speak English very well”?); and that they must not incur additional fees or delays in their case. In short, their request must not be treated as a negotiable accommodation but rather as an incontestable invocation of the justice system’s obligations.

At present, this is not the case, as proven by the complaints received by the Commissioner’s Office.

The situation is especially worrisome since, when I think of how intimidating dealing with the justice system is for most citizens, I am certain that the complaints we receive are just the tip of the iceberg. Think about it: Who would risk antagonizing the judge who has to rule on the custody of his or her children? Who would dare to criticize a system that is responsible for deciding his or her fate?

Of course, the Advisory Committee has a lot to say about this. In its report, it freely recognizes the need to improve access to justice in French. It also incisively describes the problems that Francophone litigants encounter and suggests some daring solutions. I therefore felt compelled to go through the report and share my reflections with the community, which I have done in my blog posts over the last few months.

The work doesn’t end there, though. It’s now time to move from broad strokes to fine-tuning, and from there to execution. And I am confident that that will happen, in view of the determination of the Attorney General of Ontario to ensure that citizens have equal access to Ontario’s justice system in the official language of their choice and especially the establishment of a steering committee to develop an implementation plan for the report’s recommendations. The committee has already started work, and I’m very happy about that.

Obviously, improving a system with multiple stakeholders will take time, and I’m quite prepared to wait for systemic changes to be made that will ultimately guarantee equal access to justice in French for Ontario’s citizens.

But make no mistake: I intend to be patient, but not passive. I have already asked to be kept informed of the steering committee’s progress; I have met with officials of the provincial offences administration, who were very cooperative, by the way; I have sent a request for collaboration to the Law Society of Upper Canada; and most importantly, I have clearly stated that I expect government organizations that are informed of complaints involving vulnerable citizens (which litigants are, in my view) to adopt an approach that is based on being sensitive and taking responsibility.

Thus, it seems to me that this convergence of views among the various stakeholders in the justice system points to a reassuring future for Francophone litigants. Nevertheless, I strongly urge citizens who are having difficulty being heard in French in Ontario’s courts and other decision-making bodies, or, no less importantly, in actively obtaining support in exercising this right, to contact the Commissioner’s Office without apprehension. My team will see to it that all complaints are brought to the attention of the competent authorities for individual or systematic resolution, as appropriate.

I am pleased to let you know that I will be taking part in the International Conference on Language Rights in Dublin, Ireland from May 23 to 25, 2013.

For the very first time, language ombudsmen from multiple countries will be meeting at this event. Delegates will include my colleagues Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, Michel Carrier, Commissioner of Official Languages for New Brunswick, and Sandra Inutiq, Languages Commissioner of Nunavut, as well as Meri Huws, Welsh Language Commissioner, and Slavisa Mladenovic, Language Commissioner in Kosovo among many others.

Under the theme “sharing best practices”, we will discuss policies and implementation of language rights for minorities, as well as our obligations to help preserve the language of a community. In addition, I am looking forward to seeing how the term “minority” is defined in other countries and jurisdictions.

As a panellist, I will be speaking about how language-related policies are being implemented in Ontario according to the Inclusive Definition of Francophone. Upon my return, I will gladly share with you more details about my experience.

Statistics Canada has released its first data from the National Household Survey (NHS) including the Immigration and Ethnocultural Diversity in Canada report. The NHS replaces the mandatory long form census removed by the federal government. This report shows that one in five Canadians are born abroad which is the highest proportion among the G8 countries. In addition, among all immigrants, 10% were able to converse in both official languages and one or more non-official language(s).

It has become a leitmotif but Statistics Canada reiterates, once again, its call for caution in making comparisons between the data from the NHS and those from the 2006 mandatory long-form census.
In fact, it will be difficult for the government of Ontario to carry out reliable, high-quality analyses of Ontario’s French-speaking population. This would affect, for example, measuring such factors as the level of education or socio-economic status of Francophones compared with the larger population of Ontario. It is not yet certain if the Office of Francophone Affairs will develop as usual its studies generating statistical profiles on women, young people, seniors and Francophone visible minorities as the challenges are great in terms of reliability and comparisons.

The elimination of the mandatory long-form census is unquestionably a step backwards that could jeopardize the effective and efficient implementation of provincial programs designed to serve a multifaceted Francophone population, based on the Inclusive Definition of Francophone.

Good reading!

Statistics Canada has just released their Methodology Document on the 2011 Census Language Data. In October 2012, the upon publication of data from the 2011 Census, the agency had urged citizens to be cautious when comparing with previous censuses regarding trends related to mother tongue and language spoken at home.

Last October, Statistics Canada had advised Canadian population to be cautious when determining comparative analysis between the 2011 Census and previous years’ regarding questions on mother tongue and home-language.

This document allows precisely to shed light on these two points. In fact, the federal agency confirms, that “the analysis presented here appears to confirm that the changes observed result from the modifications made to the placement and context of the language questions in the 2011 Census questionnaire compared with previous censuses.” In other words, the federal government’s decision to remove, in 2010, the mandatory long form and the controversy surrounding this issue has had an impact on the 2011 data.

However, the study indicates that “under the criteria historically used by Statistics Canada, a person’s mother tongue (language first learned at home in childhood and still understood) can change if it is no longer ‘understood’ by that person at the time of census. Nonetheless, this is thought to be a marginal phenomenon in the population as a whole.”

To be brief, although Statistics Canada reiterates its call for caution in making comparisons, the latest census data are considered to be of good quality. This will surely reassure everyone. Happy reading!

In January 2013, the Government of Ontario published the Expert Panel on French-Language Postsecondary Education in Central and Southwestern Ontario’s report entitled Moving Forward.

Access to French-language postsecondary education is crucial for Francophone communities in Central-Southwestern Ontario and that is why I took the initiative to publicly present my analysis of this report in a series of four blog posts and a news release. Of course, I also published an investigation report on this question in June 2012.

In order to facilitate navigation through these electronic publications, please find below the blog posts which I am referring to organized chronologically by publication date:

1. Report of the Expert Panel on French-Language Postsecondary Education (published on January 15, 2013, and accompanied by a news release);
2. “Raison d’être” of the Expert Panel;
3. The Paradox of French-Language Postsecondary Education in Central and Southwestern Ontario (February 21, 2013);
4. Expert Panel: Recommendations for the Immediate Future and the Longer Term.

Following the encouraging signals shown in the Speech from the Throne, will there be a more precise follow-up in the 2013 budget tabled today? A story to be followed. In the meantime, I invite you to use the above resources and refer to them whenever you feel the need to.