Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the members of the committee for having given me this opportunity to speak today.
The study you are commencing today is important and your work happens to come at a more exciting period for official languages than we have had for a long time. We therefore need to make the most of it.
My statement today is based on two key ideas.
First of all, during the pandemic, the government's modus operandi has been that because we were in an emergency situation and had to do things quickly, official languages were suddenly not as important as the central issue of protecting Canadians. We should have done it the other way around. It's precisely because the government's primary goal is to protect Canadians that official languages should have been central to its actions during the pandemic. Official languages are a tool, not an obstacle, to better protection for Canadians.
Secondly, it's precisely because, in times of crisis, when the government goes into autopilot, that best practices need to be in place already. In other words, COVID-19 has taught us that it is important to be prepared upstream and to have well-established procedures and “reflexes”. Otherwise official languages end up on the back burner whenever there is an emergency.
If the federal government came up short in its linguistic obligations beginning in March, it's because the government does not instinctively consider the linguistic impacts of implementing the measures, or treats them as optional. Official languages must become part of the federal government's autopilot mode.
Since the month of March, my colleagues and I have noticed a looser attitude towards federal linguistic obligations at daily press briefings, sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly, an example of which was the circumvention of bilingualism requirements for cleaning product labels.
In the spring, my colleague Martin Normand and I published an article entitled “Talk COVID to Me: Language Rights and Canadian Government Responses to the Pandemic”. We are also working with another colleague, Jean-François Savard, on a chapter about this topic for a forthcoming book.
Mr. Normand and I will both be speaking again about some of the major themes in our work. I will be addressing two areas: daily press briefings and other traditional radio and television communications, and social network communications.
Both official languages were certainly used in daily press briefings, but French was sometimes not as much in evidence. The Prime Minister also made some videos for children with Dr. Teresa Tam, but these were never made available in French.
Government communications on social media are not controlled to the same degree because some of the legislation, including the Official Languages Act, dates back to before these media existed. We hope that this will soon be dealt with. However, social media have become an important source of information for the public.
Our analysis of Twitter, for example, determined that French was not used as much as English by the federal government, with about 79.4% in English and 20.6% in French.
Why, beyond compliance with the act, are these observations important? We looked at it through two lenses, public safety and public health.
From the public safety standpoint, citizens need access to clear information about measures and regulations. Many stakeholders spoke to Canadians during the crisis via simultaneous interpretation or subtitling on digital platforms. But not everyone has the technological means to access these digital retransmissions.
Others might say that the rate of French-English bilingualism is higher among francophones and that they should be able to understand instructions in English. This excuse is not only unconstitutional, but false. There are many unilingual francophones, particularly among seniors, which is precisely the population most at risk from COVID-19 complications.
We have anecdotal evidence of francophones outside Quebec who tuned into to Quebec government press briefings to obtain information in French and who were complying with these measures rather than those applicable to their own province. Non-compliance with local restrictions could not only have an impact on public safety, but also legal consequences for citizens, such as fines.
From the public health standpoint, language barriers can have a negative impact on patient health, whether from diagnostic errors or inappropriate treatment.
Ontario's former French language services commissioner had previously pointed out that these risks are higher among vulnerable populations, including francophone seniors and immigrants who have a poor command of English.
In short, during a health crisis, all citizens should be able to contribute to the effort of limiting the spread of the disease, and that depends on having all essential information available in both official languages.
What should be done on the basis of these findings? A change in the federal government's mindset is required to address its linguistic obligations, and it must extend beyond the official languages commissioner's office. The pandemic has brought to light all of the various mechanisms required by the government to act in times of crisis, and shown that no government body can shirk its linguistic responsibilities.
Official languages must be seen as a way of reaching out to and communicating with Canadians, and not as a barrier to communication. The official languages need to be viewed as a way of protecting Canadians, and not as an impediment to their protection. If the State is to be nimble in responding quickly and effectively in times of crisis, then it needs the tools that would enable it to act rapidly and effectively in both official languages. It's important not only because it's an obligation, but also because lives are at stake.
Pragmatically then, how to begin the process of turning this around? We knew it before, but now it has become completely obvious: digital federal communications must be subject to the Official Languages Act. Digital communications alone will not do it, however, because far too many Canadians still rely on traditional media. We quickly realized that Canada’s chief public health officer, a role that was always just about invisible to most Canadians, had become a key player in communicating and coordinating during the pandemic. The position should have been designated bilingual, as is the case for other officers of Parliament.
My colleague Mr. Normand will talk about the situation in the provinces, but there is room for the federal government to play a leadership role for the federation, as large amounts of important information about managing the pandemic have been coming from the provincial governments. Although the Emergency Measures Act was not declared during the pandemic, it would be worth considering, before another crisis forces us to do so, how the government's action plan could be deployed, and how to make sure it complies with its linguistic obligations.
If the government is to become a true champion of official languages, just as it claims to be a champion of feminism, then it should develop an official languages policy analysis tool like the one that was developed to carry out a comparative gender-based analysis, usually referred to as GBA+.
Thank you for your time and your attention. I'll be more than happy to continue the discussion with you.