advertisement

allison hanes: there are so many reasons why english eligibility certificates have no place in health care

why should anything other than a health card be needed to qualify for care in english?

there is either a serious disconnect between the understanding of the legault government’s ministers and its own directive on access to english health care, or there is some serious gaslighting going on.

as my colleague aaron derfel first reported , the health ministry published new regulations outlining the “situations in which the health and social services network can use a language other than french.” the directive came into effect on july 18.

contrary to premier françois legault’s vow in 2022 that there would be “no change at all” to health services for anglophones and immigrants after the passage of bill 96, and french language minister jean-françois roberge’s assertion in 2023 that “a statement made in good faith” would be sufficient to receive care in english, the new guidelines stipulate a long list of ifs, ands or buts. most notable is the repeated mention of anglophones needing to show their certificate of eligibility for education in english in order to receive health services in english.

we’ll get to the long list of problems with this particular vetting mechanism in a moment (along with the absurdity). but needless to say, it set off immediate alarm bells among organizations representing quebec’s english-speaking community and ordinary anglophones alike that the legault government is reneging on promises that health care wouldn’t be affected by the updated language laws.

advertisement

advertisement

roberge took to x to “set the record straight” and denounce the gazette for “publishing articles that leave the impression that it will no longer be possible to receive health or social services in a language other than french, except for those who present their declaration of eligibility for english education in quebec.”

“i’ll say it clearly: this is not the case!” roberge insisted, attaching a screenshot from a single page of the new health ministry directive for applying the charter of the french language to the health system.
the excerpt he posted states that a language other than french “may be” used in any emergency situation in which the person needs help, must consent to treatment or participates in decisions that affect their health and well-being. (notice “may be” — not “must” or “is required to” or even “should,” which makes it appear discretionary.)
but roberge’s selective tweet is contradicted by the entirety of the 31-page ministry document, in which eligibility certificates are repeatedly mentioned. the preface, spelling out certain terms and acronyms, defines “a recognized english speaker” as a “person declared admissible for instruction in english in quebec.”

advertisement

advertisement

there is a whole section titled “oral and written communication with persons declared admissible for english instruction.” for the record, it stipulates: “an institution of the health and social services network may communicate exclusively in english with a person declared admissible for english instruction: if they present their document declaring their admissibility to receive english instruction from the quebec ministry of education; (and) if they expressly request it.”
it goes on to add: “the facility does not have the discretion with people declared admissible under articles 84.1 and 85 of the charter of the french language (the children of foreign nationals who are temporarily in quebec).”
at best, this discrepancy shows the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, which is entirely possible. at worst, it suggests someone is being disingenuous, to use a charitable term. either way, it sows confusion, chaos and fear, not only among anglophone patients, but among care providers and throughout the health system.
roberge has agreed to meet with representatives of the english-speaking community to “clarify” the new rules. it is imperative that he and/or health minister christian dubé meet with community members as soon as possible to reveal their true intentions.

advertisement

advertisement

why even mention eligibility certificates if, as roberge so vehemently says, it’s “not the case” that they will be required to access english health care?
most anglophones aren’t in the habit of carrying the certificate around to their doctors’ appointments — if they even have this document. if they do, it’s more likely to be locked away in a fireproof safe these days, given how precious the certificate has become for securing rights and status. earlier paranoia that a good-faith attestation would not be enough is now becoming a reality.
also, why should the education ministry be in charge of determining who is able to receive health care in english? that’s a rhetorical question to underscore the ludicrousness of the idea. isn’t this matter best left to a doctor and patient in the sanctity of the examining room?
and from a practical perspective, not every “rights holder,” as defined by bill 96, has an eligibility certificate.

a 96-year-old dementia patient who falls and breaks her hip, for instance, would have attended english school long before bill 101 was adopted in 1977. she sure as heck wouldn’t have one. and since the education ministry is now denying the certificates to quebecers who have already graduated , vulnerable seniors would be among a broad swath of the population excluded by this crude criterion.

advertisement

advertisement

what about the children of english-speaking quebecers who attend french school? they might not have eligibility certificates either. will they now be denied access to health care in their mother tongue because they chose french school? will they be accused of forfeiting their rights if they attempt to claim them now?
and what about english-speaking infants, toddlers and preschoolers, since parents don’t apply for children’s eligibility certificates until they enter kindergarten?
university students from out of province don’t have the document, nor would anyone from the rest of canada who moves to quebec to live and work, even though they and their children would probably qualify for english education.
so a lot of people who are considered “historic anglos” (quote-unquote, because this is not an easily definable group) are not included by a policy that relies on this document.
other quebecers entitled to public services in english under bill 96 are: those who have previously received public services in english; indigenous peoples and the inuit; and new immigrants who have been here for less than six months.
speaking of which …
the new guidelines stipulate that those previous communications need to have been “only in english” and to have occurred before may 13, 2021. and they must not have pertained to the covid-19 public health emergency. other caveats include that the health system would have to be able to verify that these communications took place. once again, the vagueness of these qualifications seems designed to refuse people.

advertisement

advertisement

the same directive states that a health facility “may use another language, in addition to french, to provide services to members of first nations and the inuit if the exclusive use of french would compromise good communication and comprehension.”

some first nations communities skew toward english and others french. but as we saw with indigenous students who attend english cegep when they appealed to the legault government for an exemption from new french-language requirements at the college level and were heartlessly rebuffed , most don’t have eligibility certificates. for many, french is a third language, of which they have a limited grasp.

once again, a whole cohort of english-speaking quebecers is at risk of being left out.
as for immigrants, the use of a language “in addition to french” is permitted to provide “services to welcome them into quebec society.” where volumes permit, “the use of the mother tongue of the immigrant must be prioritized.” but “the possibility of using a language other than french is only applicable for the six months following the arrival of the immigrant to quebec.”
as many doctors, nurses and advocates have already said, this arbitrary deadline for switching to french is not in the best interest of giving or receiving quality health care. while the availability may vary, why stop a doctor who is versed in pashto or portuguese from addressing a patient who speaks the same language? and why stop patients from conversing with their care providers in english if that’s the language they can express themselves in most easily?

advertisement

advertisement

this sounds an awful lot like turning medical tests into language exams.
all of the above are reasons why eligibility certificates are a bad way to sort out who is entitled to english health care — unless the government is looking to winnow down the number of quebecers who have access to english services. that’s the impression these health ministry guidelines leave, in spite of roberge’s protests. they certainly raise serious questions.

and they’re all the more worrisome coming on the heels of the revelation that a “francization adviser” from the office québécois de la langue française paid a visit to santa cabrini hospital last month to make sure its operating rooms were in compliance with the charter of the french language — as well as the administration’s memo to staff that “the working language must be french at all times” at a hospital that has historically had bilingual status and caters to the italian community.

honestly, why should anything other than a health card be needed to get care in english — or any other language, for that matter, if it’s available? whether or not a person can speak french should be irrelevant. this is about compassion for the vulnerable, the highest quality care for the sick and dignity for the dying.

advertisement

advertisement

the state should have no place in the examination rooms of the province.
 
allison hanes, montreal gazette
allison hanes, montreal gazette

i started at the montreal gazette in 2000 as an intern. since then i have covered the national assembly and courts, worked on the assignment desk and written editorials, before debuting as city columnist in 2017. when i’m not comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, i like to ski, read, walk my fur baby and cheerlead at my kids’ various sporting activities (as long as i promise not to embarrass them).

read more about the author

comments

postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. we ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. we have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. visit our community guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.