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.
3:55 p.m.
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It's French.
Is it better now?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Thanks.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
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.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you very much, Mrs. Cardinal
I'll move on to your colleague now.
Mr. Larocque, you have the floor.
4:05 p.m.
Dr. François Larocque Professor, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
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.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you, Mr. Larocque.
Thanks to the four witnesses for their excellent opening remarks.
We will now begin the period of exchange with the members of the committee.
The first four speakers, Mr. Généreux, Ms. Lattanzio, Mr. Beaulieu and Ms. Ashton, will each have six minutes to ask questions. I ask them to indicate the witness to whom they direct their questions.
Mr. Généreux, you have the floor for six minutes.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm astonished by the remarks from our witnesses. We've all observed various communication problems since the start of the pandemic.
Ms. Chouinard, I believe your main argument is that this is a fundamental problem. Nearly 52 years after the Official Languages Act was passed, the federal government does not yet automatically comply with the act as a whole. That's precisely what has happened and what has become obvious to us over the past eight months.
You spoke particularly clearly about the “reflex”. When we think of a government reflex, it should be a conviction that's ingrained in the way government thinks.
We understand that we are in the midst of a pandemic. However, I want to cite an incredible and outrageous example that clearly illustrates your remarks. November 11 of every year is an event that brings veterans together so we can remember their sacrifice.
This past November 11, however, Veterans Affairs posted the following error-laden tweet in French: “Ce tweet, pour recevoir un appel le 11/11 de prende un moment por se souvenir de ceux qui ont servi et sacrifice pour notre liberté.” We agree that this example concerning veterans and November 11 isn't an emergency or a crisis, but it does come up year after year.
We have recognized Canada's official languages for 52 years now, and we still see these kinds of tweets, which I imagine are generated using Google Translate. It's absolutely incredible to read these kinds of messages.
Listening to your remarks, Ms. Chouinard, I'm very surprised to hear that this “reflex” has never been developed to the point where we can ensure systematic and automatic compliance with the act today, whether in times of crisis or otherwise. The crisis has resulted in a lack of respect for the French language that amounts to a slap in the face.
Can you explain why, even today, we find ourselves in this kind of situation, whether in a time of crisis or in normal circumstances.
4:15 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. Généreux.
You're asking an important question.
I probably don't have a complete answer, but one of the reasons has been cited for several decades, and that's the fact that there's a tendency in the federal government to view official languages as an isolated issue, as the business of a single department, not all of them.
Some stakeholders today have cited other reasons and other government organizations that have been mobilized, particularly during this pandemic. That's the case of Health Canada, in particular. Those responsible haven't developed this reflexive response because people are inclined to think that official languages aren't necessarily their business, that they're more the business of Canadian Heritage, and so they think the other departments shouldn't touch them.
We need to develop a horizontal management method so that everyone has this reflexive instinct when public policies and communications with Canadians are developed. This should be done before a crisis hits. As we've seen since March, whatever is considered superfluous is the first thing to disappear during a crisis, and the official language minority communities have observed the result of this since the pandemic started.
This is one aspect among others, but it's one of the central factors. We must genuinely develop a horizontal reflex among all parts of the machinery of government so that everyone understands that the official languages are everyone's business.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Ms. Chouinard.
Mrs. Cardinal and Mr. Larocque, your study does seem conclusive, but I'd like to ask you a question.
Following the study you're conducting, the findings of which have been partly determined, do you think French-speaking Canadians who have felt poorly served or literally endangered in various situations could file a class action lawsuit, if we want to seek legal remedies, against the government for official languages non-compliance in services they have received?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Then I'll ask Mr. Larocque to answer the question.
4:20 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
If I correctly understand your question, you're wondering whether a class action suit could be filed on behalf of francophones. I think the best way would be to support our umbrella organization, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA. It files submissions with the government on behalf of francophones—of all those francophone communities—to assert their language rights more effectively.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you, Mr. Larocque.
Thank you, Mr. Généreux.
Ms. Lattanzio, you have the floor for six minutes.
November 26th, 2020 / 4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to welcome all our witnesses.
My question is for you, Mr. Larocque. Thank you very much for your explanation.
I was really struck by your statement that it's less effective to amend regulations to protect the obligation to provide information in both official languages. You go further in your diagnosis: you say we should even amend the Official Languages Act.
What legal mechanisms should we add to the act?
4:20 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you for that excellent question, Ms. Lattanzio.
I hope our study helps in outlining some potential solutions. What the FCFA intends to do, as my colleague Mrs. Cardinal explained at the outset, is propose to the government the wording of provisions that might be used to amend the Official Languages Act. We will determine the precise form that wording will take in light of the findings of our study and of the interviews we conduct in the following weeks.
The idea that immediately comes to mind would be to include in the Official Languages Act one or two sections, even a short division on the framing or inclusion, by reference, of regulatory provisions respecting bilingual labelling and packaging.
Official languages regulations do exist, respecting the labelling and packaging of consumer products, food and drugs in particular. It's very important that this appear in the regulations. However, regulations are a fragile instrument in that they can be more easily circumvented by the Governor in Council acting alone without the approval of Parliament. Legislating by regulation thus results in a degree of fragility.
On the other hand, if we want to include new provisions in the act, it's up to Parliament to vote on those additions and to amend applicable provisions. That's why we anticipate that statutory amendments would provide better protection for bilingual labelling standards. The FCFA may draft its proposals to that effect.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
We have a year to complete it. We're already sending out invitations. Don't be surprised if you hear about us in the coming weeks.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you.
My next question is for Ms. Chouinard.
As we've said this afternoon and all understand, the pandemic has had dire consequences for the health and economic situation of Canadians, and also, unfortunately, for their safety and security.
We've had the Commissioner of Official Languages' report filed with us. It was entitled “A Matter of Respect and Safety: The Impact of Emergency Situations on Official Languages”. Mr. Théberge stated quite clearly that there was a lack of vital COVID-19 information distributed to the English and French minority language communities across our country. The report also found that Canadians had a hard time making the distinction between federal, provincial, territorial and municipal areas of responsibility as they related to the language of service. It was perceived as being confusing, blurred and immaterial.
In your opinion, do you have any suggestions as to how to better foster communication and co-operation between the various levels of government?
4:25 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, Ms. Lattanzio.
One of the things that Martin and I noticed in our research is that the Quebec government at some point actually took up some of the gap in information in the French language for official language minorities outside of Quebec. When the Quebec government published the COVID guide in French, the Secrétariat du Québec aux relations canadiennes decided to publish an outside-of-Quebec version of the guide for francophones outside of Quebec.
That was a very interesting development from our end. They actually published this outside-of-Quebec guide before they published their own COVID guide in English, which is obviously something that was fulfilled a few weeks later. The blurriness between the jurisdictions is something that happens, notwithstanding times of crisis. This is something that we notice in our own classrooms as political scientists.
Maybe in a sense the federal government could be a leader in trying to standardize some of the messages and information that were conveyed to Canadians, especially at the onset of the crisis, when there were so many press conferences every day and when I think there was a bit of an information overload at the beginning.
I'm going to stop there.
