I was saying that my presentation will be given in tandem with my colleague, Mr. François Larocque.
You have just heard two presentations that included research results. Today, we are going to describe a research project that complements these, but that addresses the question of official languages during the pandemic from a different angle, one that is more legal and focused on representations of the language used in administering official languages.
The project we are going to discuss today was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada under its Partnership Engage grants program. Our main partner in this research is the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA.
I will provide an overview of the research and its objectives. We thought that you might find it interesting and that it might fuel further discussion.
I'll begin by commenting on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the government's ability to supply information in both official languages, which is the very subject of your study. I agree with my colleague Mr. Normand in saying that our work is not limited to communications. It focuses much more on problems related to bilingual labelling.
I'll begin with the conclusion, to make things easier. Then, if I haven't had enough time to finish my statement, you'll at least have the conclusion.
There are two important messages in what I am presenting to you today.
First is the key role of research on official languages.
The handling of official languages in the management of the current crisis was not based on existing credible research and data in the field of official languages, including health and public safety aspects. Researchers have been saying for years now that language is an issue that affects health and public safety. In my own work, I have pointed this out on numerous occasions.
There is a great deal of Canadian expertise in this field, for example at the Institut du savoir Montfort language institute, where researchers have been emphasizing this dimension of language policy for many years now. That's the first message, which is also a statement of fact.
The second message is a key assumption underpinning our work.
The Canadian government's official languages action during the pandemic reflects the concept of language as an identity issue. It's very important, and we know that language is indeed a vehicle of identity, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, since 1982—a relatively long time ago—, language has also been a vehicle of citizenship. It has been argued that language is a fundamental value of Canadian society. When we say that, we are doing more than reducing language to these identity issues.
Language is also said to be a vehicle of citizenship, and accordingly, of inclusion. This means that in health, access to education, language of work and safety, these issues are intrinsically tied to citizenship. That's why the FCFA has so often said in the media that francophones were treated as second-class citizens. Why? Because underlying the representation of the language that guided government action, there was perhaps a narrower view of the government's obligations. My colleague Mr. Larocque, can tell you more about this shortly.
That, basically, was our conclusion.
Our research needs to be placed in context, and I will tell you about this briefly. I would also like to explain our objectives and expected outcomes.
I won't go into all the events mentioned by my colleagues previously, but it is definitely important to recap what went on in the month of March and the month of May.
In March, the Canadian government decided to opt out of its obligation with respect to bilingual labelling for disinfectants not once, but twice, claiming that French was an identity issue, that official languages were a vehicle for our identity, that it was truly unfortunate, but that we were in an emergency situation and could not do it. That's what our Prime Minister said.
Secondly, following numerous representations, and after the government had shirked its obligation for a second time, we finally heard the Prime Minister himself say that he considered language to be a health and public safety issue.
My colleague and I sent letters and wrote media articles to shore up this idea, and this led to measures being taken. However, as my colleague Martin Normand, pointed out, we had trouble seeing concrete results from these measures.
What we saw, which is what led to our research, was that there is no French lens within the government, with respect to emergencies and other areas, and that the existing officials guiding the government's emergency measures actions and official languages were circumventing the Official Languages Act.
We also noted a lack of sympathy towards French in a time of crisis, a failure to take compelling data about official languages in health into account to guide the government's action, along with faint-hearted recognition from the Prime Minister that language is a health and public safety issue.
We used this factual analysis again in a partnership project for scientific research, whose main objective is to shed light on the management of official languages in times of crisis, through interviews with a wide range of government and political stakeholders, including those responsible for the COVID-19 studies conducted in the 12 departments concerned.
I'll stop there. You've already heard my conclusion.
Thank you. I would be more than happy to respond to any questions or comments you might have.
I will now turn things over to my colleague, Mr. Larocque, so that he can speak to you on the more legal aspects of our work.