Official Languages Committee on Nov. 26th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Go ahead, Ms. Lalonde.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Ashton, with all due respect to you and your opinion, I would like to have a copy of your notice of motion in both official languages.

As for the second motion, we have here witnesses with whom we are examining the situation caused by the pandemic and the fact that there have been French-language slip-ups even in Manitoba. I'm not criticizing what you're saying, Ms. Ashton, but you must understand that I would like to resume our meeting with our witnesses, who have taken the time to be with us today on short notice.

Mr. Chair, I'd like us to return to our witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Lalonde.

Then I will ask the question again: do we have the committee's consent to debate Ms. Ashton's motion?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

No, Mr. Chair.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

No.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

No, not as far as I'm concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

We therefore do not have unanimous consent.

You have 30 seconds left, Ms. Ashton. Go ahead.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

With all due respect to Ms. Lalonde, it's my right, as a member of the committee, to move something that is this important, that is a matter of life and death for women.

I would respectfully say to all those who sit on this committee that this issue concerns us all; it concerns us all.

I really am very disappointed in this response.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

I now turn the floor over to Mr. Blaney for five minutes.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Pardon me. There is a point of order.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

This is a quick question. Has notice of Ms. Ashton's second motion also been given for the next meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Absolutely.

Go ahead, Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you very much.

We can of course debate these very worthy motions in committee, but, first, I would like to congratulate certain individuals.

First, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Dubourg, because this is really an interesting meeting. And through you, I also congratulate our analysts, who have invited these four excellent witnesses. I also congratulate Ms. Lattanzio for proposing this study on the pandemic. The work we have done to date shows how capable the committee is of making headway when it switches into work mode. I almost feel like saying that, when we step up our efforts, I wouldn't go so far as to say that we make up for lost time, but we cover ground quickly. The delays are behind us, and we're looking straight ahead.

A gloomy picture has been painted here this afternoon with regard to the Canadian government's response to the pandemic. I must say it's disturbing.

Much has been made of the fact that the Official Languages Act is 52 years old, but it shouldn't be forgotten that it was improved in 1988. Yesterday, my colleague Joël Godin, who is the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, quoted you, Ms. Cardinal, because you said we needed to give the act "some teeth". How do you think we can modernize the Official Languages Act in the circumstances?

One of the recommendations, from a broader, whole-of-government perspective, is that the Official Languages Act be made a quasi-constitutional act and thus placed above other acts and, in a way, other departments and the Treasury Board. I'd like to hear your comments on that, Ms. Cardinal.

The testimony we heard was truly captivating. Ms. Chouinard, in particular, told us that the official languages issue has simply been ignored during the pandemic, and she added that it should always apply and that it should always be taken into consideration.

First, I'm going to turn the floor over to Ms. Cardinal, and then I would like to hear your comments, Ms. Chouinard, on how to guarantee a general predisposition toward official languages in efforts concerning the modernization of the act and government structures. We must ensure that another crisis doesn't reveal further breaches of the act. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Official Languages Act is symbolic or in a precarious position, but its foundation definitely needs to be shored up.

[Linda Cardinal]

Thank you for your question.

It's an important question. When I said we had to give the act "some teeth", I was thinking of one of your former colleagues, someone I very much liked, Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier. That's what he always said. In 2005, when he introduced his reform to encourage the government to take positive measures to foster the development and vitality of the official language minority communities, he said that the Official Languages Act had to be "given some teeth". I always think of Mr. Gauthier when I say that.

Minister Joly has conducted very important consultations of Canadians. Many recommendations have been made precisely to give the act teeth. The FCFA introduced quite a comprehensive bill that would provide for administration of the Official Languages Act to be handed over to a central agency. It would also require Supreme Court justices to be bilingual and reinforce the right of government employees to work in the official language of their choice.

I think what you need to do is take everything that was said during those consultations and review all the proposals that were made. There's an enormous amount of material that could be used to bolster the Official Languages Act. You could also consider all the recommendations that all the commissioners of official languages have made since that position was introduced and determine which ones were implemented. You would see that not that many have been implemented. With all that, you'd already have what you need to strengthen the Official Languages Act.

A lot of proposals are circulating. They all have to be evaluated, of course, but there are some very good proposals that would help strengthen the act. My colleague Martin Normand and I published a paper as part of the University of Ottawa's IMPACT initiative in which we detailed a set of factors to which I refer you. These factors are designed to ensure that the Official Languages Act is reinforced.

If there is one thing I would focus on, it's the lens. All government operations should be viewed through an official languages lens, a francophone lens, to ensure the Canadian government's policies are consistent with its legal and constitutional official languages framework.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Cardinal.

Thanks to you as well, Mr. Beaulieu, for the comments you made at the start.

Ms. Lalonde, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks once again to all our witnesses for being here and for taking the time to come and speak to us. I'm sure they have very busy schedules.

Before I start, I'd like to congratulate publicly Ms. Cardinal, who is now the new regional director of the Agence universitaire de la francophonie dans les Amériques, the AUF. I wanted at least to greet and congratulate her on that appointment.

I have a lot of questions. In Orleans, questions were raised about this slip-up and what was perhaps a government decision.

I was very proud to hear Minister Joly say it made no sense. I don't want to quote her, but I think that was the gist of her message. She very much agreed that we had to do better and find solutions. That's the purpose of our current study.

I'd like to speak to Mr. Larocque, but everyone may speak.

Mr. Larocque, I was really interested in what you said about what appears in the preambles to the acts and how we can perhaps create new sections in the Official Languages Act to reinforce the language situation. We all agree that the departments often work in isolation, and that's what has happened during this pandemic.

Do you think it would be preferable to adapt the act, to make express regulations under other acts or to combine measures?

I think I know what you're going to say, but I'd really like to hear your comments on the matter, particularly on the preamble to the Emergency Measures Act and that of the Official Languages Act.

[Dr. François Larocque]

It will be a pleasure.

You must remember that the Emergency Measures Act replaced the War Measures Act in 1988, one week before the second Official Languages Act was passed. Members of Parliament had those two acts in mind in 1988.

I think that was a missed opportunity because the members made it so that the two acts didn't speak to each other. We always say that hindsight is 20/20, but it would have been possible and desirable—we have an opportunity to correct this—to ensure that respect for and the precedence of the Official Languages Act are expressly stated in the Emergency Measures Act.

Here's the connection with Mr. Blaney's comment. The Official Languages Act is already a quasi-constitutional act, and its precedence is already provided for in its section 82. Given its privileged status relative to other federal statutes, it would be helpful if its primacy were reflected in legislation such as the Emergency Measures Act and invoked and restated when special measures are passed. I'm thinking, for example, of emergency measures legislation passed in connection with COVID-19 in March and April. I'd also like to make the connection with what my colleague Ms. Chouinard said earlier, that this would encourage the bilingualism "reflex" and help us switch off autopilot and understand that we have to do everything in both languages.

Here's one way I explain the matter to students in my language rights course. In 1982, when, as a result of the charter, Canada became a constitutionally bilingual country, we took the Official Languages Act of 1969 and included it in our supreme law. We essentially made bilingualism so much a part of Canada's DNA that, when Canada catches a cold, it has to sneeze in both languages. That's the automatic reflex I want Canada to have in this new Official Languages Act.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

How do we go about aligning that with what's being done at the provincial level, where authorities give directives that have an impact on people's lives?

The Ford government issued directives in Ontario and other directives were made in Quebec. Many citizens in my riding watched the French-language news on the francophone channels, but that news was about health conditions in Quebec. It was terrible because my fellow citizens were a bit lost, even though there are some highly educated people in my riding. As you said, some of them were watching French-language news from Quebec about vulnerable people, recent immigrants and seniors, for example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Lalonde, but your speaking time is up.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Pardon me.

I would have liked to ask you that question, Mr. Larocque, but we'll discuss it again later.

[Dr. François Larocque]

All right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Pardon me, Mr. Larocque, but I can't let you answer that question because Ms. Lalonde's speaking time is up.

We have 15 minutes before we adjourn. I know our discussions and debates are very interesting, but we have to move on so all the parties can speak.

In the next round of questions, each party will have four minutes. So the next speakers are Mr. Généreux, Ms. Martinez Ferrada, Mr. Beaulieu and Ms. Ashton.

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor for four minutes.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to add my thanks to those of my colleagues who have spoken to the witnesses today. Their remarks are really very interesting.

I was struck by your testimony, Ms. Chouinard. Your speech was very powerful. On public health, you said there was a risk for the vulnerable populations. Ms. Lalonde just said that many people in her riding are educated, but I believe that's the case of many segments of the population, unless I'm mistaken, and that obviously includes seniors and the most vulnerable individuals.

This public health issue, the fact that people can't understand the language, is serious. You saw what happened in Joliette. The incident involved a language other than one of the official languages. A woman died because people who were caring for her couldn't understand her language. That's one example, but that could very well have happened in French or English. However hospital staff in the region were used to admitting people from the indigenous community and already had to follow protocols. Very significant public health threats abound, whether in Orleans or in any other place where the francophone community is in the minority.

Ms. Chouinard, can you cite any specific examples? Have any similar cases been reported to you?