Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the honourable members of the committee for this opportunity to appear.
The advantage of speaking last is that I can be more concise, because several comments I was going to make have already been said. That's great, as it will leave more time for discussion.
During the waiting period prior to the start of the meeting, my MP, Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde, commented that one of the sentences of the year would definitely be, “Your mic is on mute.”
Second place might well go to:
One should never waste a good opportunity or good crisis.
“Never waste a good crisis.” I'm talking along with the interpreter here. Translating yourself is a dangerous business, isn't it?
As my colleagues have said before me, this pandemic has made us realize that official languages can't be dissociated from public health and safety. There can be no doubt about that. The very title of the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages on the Canadian government's reaction to the pandemic is an indication that this is a compliance and safety issue. As a jurist, I would add, out of professional bias, that respect for official languages in times of crisis is also a rule of law issue. The Official Languages Act and the language rights that it codifies and that are set forth in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must always guide the government's actions, particularly in times of crisis.
In our research, each of my colleagues, Ms. Chouinard, Mr. Normand and Mrs. Cardinal, and I examine various aspects of the manner in which official languages are taken into account in the government's actions. From a legal standpoint, the additional focus that we can bring is on the way official languages are taken into consideration in developing action plans and legislation. We're using the current modernization of the Official Languages Act as an opportunity to discuss these issues. And in this modernization effort, we must absolutely acknowledge the lessons we learn from the pandemic and determine what additions we can make to this quasi-constitutional statute.
As my colleague Ms. Chouinard said earlier, the Emergency Measures Act wasn't invoked during the pandemic. However, it's important to note that, if it had been, we would have noted that its preamble is entirely silent on the matter of official languages. The preamble to the act provides that the emergency measures and actions taken under it shall be guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which of course includes language rights. However, the act is silent on the subject of the Official Languages Act, although it does refer to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I agree that's important too, but the Emergency Measures Act should expressly refer to the Official Languages Act as well.
The two statutes respecting emergency measures in connection with COVID-19—the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act of March 25 and the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, No. 2—which were passed and assented to by Parliament, are also silent on official languages. They even authorize the Minister of Health and the Governor in Council to make regulations that would allow the government to shirk its language obligations, notably with respect to bilingual labelling.
Without anticipating the findings of the study that Mrs. Cardinal and I are conducting, we already sense that the Official Languages Act must obviously be amended to reflect the lessons learned from the pandemic.
Consequently, it should be expressly provided in the Emergency Measures Act that the Official Languages Act shall continue to apply in times of crisis, even where the Emergency Measures Act may be invoked.
The Official Languages Act already provides that it prevails over acts that are inconsistent with it, but it should also include provisions stating that it applies in times of crisis and that the government must absolutely consider its provisions in all actions it takes.
In light of the clear lessons learned respecting bilingual labelling, where I feel a major error was made that has permitted the importing of hazardous products labelled in English only, it is important that consideration be given to the idea of including provisions respecting bilingual labelling and packaging in the Official Languages Act.
At the moment, these provisions appear, not in an act, but in regulations, the consumer packaging and labelling regulations, which were made under the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, and the food and drug regulations.
Not that this makes no sense. The fact that bilingual labelling provisions are set forth in regulations does make it easier for the Governor in Council to suspend their application. However, if they were included in the act, they would provide much stronger protection and their enforcement would be harder to circumvent.
That brings my presentation to an end.
I welcome your questions and comments.