Evidence of meeting #8 for Official Languages in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pandemic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you so much.
Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor for the next six minutes.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Good afternoon.
I found the presentations very interesting. I've especially taken note of the more specific suggestions to amend the Official Languages Act to include measures respecting the Emergency Measures Act.
Like Mr. Généreux, I notice the Commissioner of Official Languages is sounding the alarm once again, even though official languages have been recognized for 51 years. We can see that they clearly aren't integrated. I wonder whether it's the language planning model underlying the official bilingualism statute that doesn't work. For 51 years, we've seen the rate of anglicization and assimilation of francophones outside Quebec constantly rise, and the demographic weight of francophones outside Quebec is declining as a result.
The same is somewhat true of bilingualism. We're told that the increase in bilingualism in Canada comes mainly from Quebec. Outside Quebec, 85% of francophones are bilingual, compared to only 7% of anglophones. The bilingualism rate among francophones in Quebec has risen slightly to 40%. From 2001 to 2016, those rates have increased from 36.6% to 40% among francophones and from 61.1% to 69% among anglophones. That appears to be leading us to a decline.
We're also told that Statistics Canada's linguistic forecasts and projections suggest no advance in bilingualism among the English mother tongue population of Canada outside Quebec. There's a growing gap between bilingualism in Quebec and that outside Quebec.
The very principle of the Official Languages Act is based on a planning model, on institutional bilingualism and individual rights, although there's a degree of proportionality based on the criterion of where numbers warrant. Models that are deemed to be able to protect minority languages are based more on the principle of territoriality.
Do you think improvements can be achieved if more sweeping changes aren't made to the Official Languages Act?
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
It's for whoever wants to answer it.
We could start with Mrs. Cardinal.
4:25 p.m.
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you asking that important and relevant question, Mr. Beaulieu.
You wondered whether the language planning model used had resulted in failures, from an official languages perspective, in managing the pandemic. In fact, it's more the governance model. Whether under a territorial or personalistic regime, many Canadians, even in the House of Commons, and many researchers were unaware that the Official Languages Act didn't have the necessary normative force to guide the government's action in a pandemic context. Many people have discovered that the bilingual labelling of disinfectant products is governed, not by the Official Languages Act, but by other legislation.
Canadians may have been surprised to see that the Official Languages Act wasn't integrated into the emergency plan. As my colleague Mr. Larocque has clearly shown, regulations and statutes must align with each other. This can also be seen in the case of Mr. Normand, who filed a complaint that wound up at Health Canada, not on the desk of the Commissioner of Official Languages. However, that department doesn't have the necessary mechanism to handle official languages complaints, but the complaint didn't fall within the purview of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
This is a governance issue. No governance mechanism has been put in place to ensure that official languages aren't forgotten.
I have a possible explanation. The officials who conducted the analysis from an official languages standpoint wondered whether exempting products from bilingual labelling requirements contravened the Official Languages Act, decided no or perhaps, and thought that the interviews would help them determine the answer and that, if it didn't contravene the act, they could go ahead.
The Prime Minister confirmed at a press conference that the Official Languages Act is important for our identity, but does that mean it isn't important for our public health and safety? The Official Languages Act definitely puts a lot of emphasis on identity, but it also concerns a citizenship issue.
It's very important to integrate official languages governance into the federal government.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Pardon me, Mr. Beaulieu, but your time is up. You can come back to this later.
Now we will go to Ms. Ashton for six minutes, please.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to start by thanking all the witnesses for their highly instructive testimony in the difficult times we're living in.
My first question is for Mrs. Cardinal.
You've written, with regard to French, that the government's actions in periods of crisis have shed light on the prejudiced view that the default language in Canada is English and that French can be sacrificed for the sake of expediency. You've also written that the government's opinion of unilingualism is that it's efficient and that it's almost as though the competent people are necessarily all anglophone.
I think you're right. The Commissioner of Official Languages has made similar remarks. He has even said that, if the Official Languages Act had been modernized and reinforced, many problems that appeared during the crisis could have been avoided.
Do you also think there is an urgent need to modernize the Official Languages Act?
4:30 p.m.
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you very much for your remarks.
There's a whole body of international research on the impact of failure to consider minority languages in emergency situations. You may think that switching to a single language is more efficient, but the consequences show it's not necessarily the best course of action.
The same is true of the idea that you can switch to English since all francophones are bilingual. Then people will say that some unilingual francophones don't understand English. In fact, as my colleague Mr. Larocque said, we're dealing with a legal issue. Canada is a country with two official languages.
Consequently, when officials, the people in charge and the Prime Minister give their approval to adopt an emergency measure or to put forward policies, they must respect bilingualism in doing so. Bilingualism is a skill and an additional competency. It nullifies neither our right to service in French nor the duty to take official languages into consideration.
Since we are in a partnership with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, we think this is an appropriate time to consider these issues in the amendment and reinforcement of the Official Languages Act. Since a white paper is forthcoming, it's time to discuss this issue as part of the current official languages debate.
As we noted earlier, this is the ideal opportunity to ensure that the Official Languages Act meshes with other legislative and regulatory frameworks. The goal is precisely to guarantee that Canadians' right to a public service in the official language of their choice isn't abandoned in a crisis or amid public health and safety issues.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Thank you very much for your answer.
My next question is for all the witnesses.
The government stated this week that it wants to table a white paper on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. We know that announcement was made despite the fact it has already promised to modernize the act.
Considering the issues we've just experienced during the pandemic crisis, what do you think of this delay?
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Do I have to raise my hand?
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you for your questions, Ms. Ashton.
I'll piggyback on what Mrs. Cardinal said. It's absolutely necessary that the Official Languages Act be modernized, and it's all the more important that we consider the lessons from the pandemic.
You have before you four academics who will be delighted to read the white paper. It will be like a Christmas present for us. However, that mustn't delay the essential adoption of an official languages act. The consultation process and modernization studies began a long time ago. All that work has been done.
I'm one of the people who think that it's good to have a white paper but that it shouldn't delay the introduction of the bill.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
I wanted to know whether Ms. Chouinard or anyone else wanted to respond.
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada and Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
I'll respond briefly.
If I correctly understand Minister Joly's intent, the white paper will focus on official languages but not necessarily solely on the Official Languages Act. I can't wait to see what else is in the white paper because we've been talking about the act for a relatively long time.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you very much.
Mr. Dalton, you have the floor for five minutes.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Thanks to all the witnesses for their presentations. They were very interesting.
Ms. Chouinard, your entire speech was very interesting, but I'd like to focus on a few passages. You said the Official Languages Act should be a tool for serving Canadians, not an obstacle. The act must be seen as a protective measure, not a problem. Mr. Larocque also noted that one should never waste a good crisis.
You also mentioned Dr. Tam, whose videos weren't translated, and said there had been interpretation problems. You suggested that the chief public health officer should be bilingual.
Lastly, you said that many unilingual francophones in the vulnerable groups, seniors and recent immigrants, for example, can't obtain services. That can really cause safety issues in an emergency situation such as the one we're experiencing.
I wanted to give you a few minutes to add to those comments.
4:40 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada and Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Dalton. I can expand on what I said earlier.
You can't claim to protect a population that you don't serve in its official language. Those people not only have a right; they expect the federal government to be able to serve them in the language of their choice. That's essential. It's the government's responsibility to be able to do so.
Sometimes you think you're more efficient when you go faster and avoid translation or the need to make the same information available in both official languages, but that can have the opposite effect. I briefly cited a few examples to illustrate that.
You can have a population that doesn't exactly understand what the government expects of it because the directives in its language weren't clear. There may be a population that hesitates to use health services because, once again, it hasn't understood the directives.
As the studies have shown, this is particularly true among seniors, who are uncertain whether they can be served in their language. As you get older, your cognitive abilities in your second language tend to decline. Hearing problems also develop in persons of a certain age. Since the immigrant population is less familiar with the health system, they will hesitate to use it. These are all reasons why it is essential that directives be clear and in both official languages.
As regards the chief public health officer, what we've seen as citizens is a person we weren't very familiar with before the pandemic and whose position, which has become a central one, doesn't just require her to communicate with Canadians. A whole lot of coordination work is being done behind the curtains with different stakeholders across the country. That's why my intention is to say that this position should be designated bilingual because it plays an essential role. The person who performs that role must be able to communicate with stakeholders in the official language of their choice.
I'll stop there. I hope I've added something to my comments.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
I don't have a lot of time left. Perhaps I'll ask for comments from another witness.
Mr. Larocque, is there anything you would like to add?
4:40 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I'll give my speaking time to others, if they have any other perspectives. However, I think that Ms. Chouinard did a good job of making the important points.