What do the national carrier Air Canada and the American giant Otterbox have in common? Branches in several countries and the elegance of serving their customers in several languages. All their customers? There are quite a few for whom the momentum seems to be lacking. Both obviously have difficulty adapting, for example, to the subtleties of the Quebec market. Would our requests for linguistic accommodation be so unreasonable?
Obviously not. We cannot overemphasize the precisely “reasonable” nature of the new language requirements imposed on businesses through the adoption of a law 96 which, moreover, we have neither to be ashamed nor to be concerned about. excuse. Being served in your language should be completely natural. This is also what countries around the world are doing in the name of two principles that we would like to believe are inalienable: national sovereignty and public protection, recalled in The duty approved translator Donald Barabé.
Still, we can only note — once again — that our legitimate expectations in terms of language are disturbing. The ongoing legislative change is increasingly associated with “bureaucratic heaviness”, showed The duty under the keyboard of Zacharie Goudreault. These harassments would even end up pushing Canadian, American and foreign companies to cut ties with Quebec rather than comply with its requests.
This is the case of the electronic accessories specialist Otterbox, which has chosen to pause its services in Quebec. It also displays it in full on its website: it is the “requirements of Law 96” that are in question; no hiding, no pretense. Coming from an American company which offers its services in many countries such as Japan, Germany, Sweden or France – and in their national language (yes, yes, even in French from France, my dear!) -, this assumed procrastination is at least as disappointing as it is irritating.
Otterbox is not alone in making the same bet. London Drugs, PetSmart, Pearson VUE: the list of companies that prefer to withdraw rather than respect the obligation to write their contracts, job offers, invoices and other relevant documents in French continues to grow, worries the business environment. True, there is a shortage of translators. Quebec could offer support measures and assistance, no doubt. But from there to reprocessing or watering down the law because we fear a bloodletting which could, hypothetically, have an effect on the Quebec economy?
In the opinion of the president and CEO of the Employers’ Council, Karl Blackburn, this risk must be taken into account, because the decision of these companies responds to an unstoppable logic. There is indeed a cost-benefit calculation to be made with regard to this law, which comes with measurable constraints. To the point where the leader believes that it would be better to “use the borders of Quebec as a springboard to shine in the world” than to make them “a rampart to protect us against those who do not speak French”.
But isn’t this looking at the problem solely from the side of the economy? If the Act respecting the official and common language of Quebec, French, has been strengthened, it is precisely because our borders are porous in terms of language, and this on all fronts: the economy, of course, but also culture , knowledge, science, diplomacy… This list stretches endlessly, including within Canada itself, where our façade of bilingualism regularly makes the headlines.
We could see this again last week in an enlightening preliminary report from the Commissioner of Official Languages, including The duty got a copy. Reporter Sandrine Vieira told us that Air Canada failed to implement the dozens of recommendations made by the commissioner between 2019 and 2022. The carrier barely flinched. He has the habit of wearing the linguistic dunce cap to the point that he no longer even seems to be moved by our outbursts.
Last year, the commissioner’s report revealed that Air Canada had been the subject of three times more complaints related to the Official Languages Act than in a typical year. Also subject to Law 96, the airline was also among the last to comply with the new provisions of the Charter of the French Language, with Canadian National (CN), another giant deemed rather insensitive to linguistic duality.
Air Canada’s wait-and-see attitude — which these days is taking on the appearance of a stubborn refusal to take matters into its own hands to meet the demands of the Commissioner of Official Languages — only confirms the necessity of these new requirements. If even a flagship Canadian and openly bilingual — on paper at least — allows himself such an attitude, it is difficult to see how we could put more water in our wine to accommodate companies that do not have the thread in their paw that still connects us to Air Canada or CN.