May 30, 2025 – for immediate release
The National NewsMedia Council (NNC) has considered and dismissed a complaint about accuracy and language use in an October 30, 2024, opinion article published by the National Post.
The opinion piece criticized language rules by the Treasury Board of Canada requiring “new supervisors in bilingual regions (including Ottawa, where much of the public service is based) to speak official languages at a ‘superior’ level in June 2025.” The piece argued that the rules negatively impact anglophones, and that the federal government is “trampling on the career prospects of thousands of public service employees” who do not speak French.
Charles Lalonde filed a complaint with the NNC alleging that the opinion piece “encourages negative sentiment towards ethnic francophones and Quebeckers” by suggesting that francophones are committing “attacks” against anglophones.
The complainant pointed to numerous statements and examples of language used in the piece to support the view that the opinion misleads readers by “providing factually inaccurate statements while omitting critically important information that would allow readers to obtain a factual, non-biased presentation of the issues.”
In particular, the complainant raised concern that the opinion piece’s use of language suggested that francophones were committing “attacks” against anglophones, and the piece’s reference to “systemic discrimination.” The complainant worried about the impact of this language on the wider community.
The complainant also raised concerns about a number of other issues. These concerns included: the accuracy of the statements in the column characterizing the content of the specific language requirements, the impact on francophones and bilingual individuals versus monolingual anglophones, the opinion writer’s perspective on the advantage of bilingualism in the hiring process, and the ways in which courts have dealt with language requirements.
In reviewing the matter, Council found that a number of the complainant’s concerns reflected a difference of opinion or were directly supported by material cited in the opinion piece. With respect to language use, Council noted that the framing of the argument as an “attack” and use of language such as “crusade” falls under the wide latitude afforded to opinion writers to present unpopular opinions and to use strong language in presenting their views. Further, the language appeared to be directed at the government decision to implement new language requirements, rather than toward francophone populations.
Second, the use of the term “systemic discrimination” appears to be part of an argument about the impact of the requirements on “monolingual anglophones.” The piece states, “Any rule that deprives this group from entering and ascending the state bureaucracy is a feature, not a bug; it’s systemic discrimination in the literal sense.” Readers may strongly disagree with this conclusion, but the statement is the view of the columnist who is making a particular argument.
Regarding the description of the rule as requiring “bilingualism” and that it ‘takes away’ opportunities “from English speakers around the country,” the NNC observed that the piece explained the rule and links to the Treasury Board website. While it does interpret and criticize the requirements, the piece states: “the Treasury Board requires all new supervisors in bilingual regions (including Ottawa, where much of the public service is based) to speak official languages at a “superior” level in June 2025. Currently, supervisors in bilingual zones must speak their second official language at an “intermediate” level.” In this way, the column states the requirements and links to more details, which allows for readers to make their own assessment of the requirements in question.
Regarding the complainant’s concern about the accuracy of the statement indicating a failure “to convince courts that Canadian heads of state must be capable in both English and French,” the statement includes a hyperlink to another article which was a response to a court ruling related to language requirements for New Brunswick’s lieutenant-governor. While the complainant may be correct in observing that similar cases may be under consideration in other jurisdictions, in this case, the writer notes that the matter has yet to be settled and points to a case to support that view.
Regarding the point about the right of Canadians to be heard in court as “a right that never existed until the Liberals dreamed it up,” the piece appears to be commenting on the specific legislation cited in the previous paragraph of the piece.
That said, the NNC determined that two specific concerns raised by the complainant warranted further consideration. The scope of the complaint was limited to the accuracy of the statement that bilingual individuals “receive express entry into the federal public service,” as well as the concern that the column characterizes francophones as “less competent” by referring to, for example, eligible candidates for the Supreme Court as comprising a “second-rate pool of applicants.”
The news organization responded to the concern about portraying anglophones as “more competent” by stating that the writer was “not arguing that francophone or bilingual Canadians are less competent, only that limiting the applicant pool to those who can speak both languages limits how many competent applicants there will be. There will be “less competition” as [the columnist] put it. English-speaking only lawyers and judges are completely disqualified in this example.”
Regarding the opinion piece’s point that bilingual Canadians “receive express entry into the federal public service,” the news organization stated, “there are a disproportionate number of jobs in the federal bureaucracy requiring both languages” compared to the number of bilingual Canadians. The news organization pointed to multiple sources, including Statistics Canada, that may support the writer’s point that “Bilingual Canadians are prioritized for employment in the federal civil service.”
The complainant was not satisfied with the news organization’s response, and underscored that the use of the term “second-rate” suggests the pool of candidates are of “inferior quality or value,” and that “express” seems to refer to the “speed with which bilingual and non-bilingual candidates are hired.”
In response to a request for further clarification, the news organization clarified, “Express entry is intended to mean that bilingual Canadians have an advantage based on their number compared to the total bilingual positions in the public service. So yes, it is not a reference to processing times.”
The news organization also noted, “As for second-rate, it isn’t used to suggest that bilingual Canadians are inferior candidates, but that the total pool of candidates is second-rate, because there is no competition from large numbers of anglophone candidates. The pool is smaller, and therefore inferior, not because of who is in the pool.”
The NNC has previously stated that opinion writing should take care not to use language that may disproportionately affect marginalized groups. While opinion writers have latitude over word choice and the ability to use strong language in making unpopular or even provocative arguments, Council has urged particular care to be taken to avoid the use of inflammatory or ambiguous language, especially when dealing with complex or sensitive matters. For this reason, Council would emphasize news organizations take steps to guard against the use of ambiguous language that may be interpreted as negatively targeting an identifiable group of people.
At the same time, an important role of opinion writing is to present varied perspectives, including criticism, on matters in the public interest, such as policy changes and other government actions. Importantly, Council observed that the target of the particular opinion piece’s criticism appeared to be the federal government policy, rather than francophone or bilingual people themselves.
Council agreed that readers may interpret the statements in the column in question as highly contentious or even offensive. Readers may strongly disagree with the writer’s views about the language requirements and find other sources to counter the argument presented.
While Council would underscore the need to take appropriate care when dealing with ambiguous language that may be interpreted as having an unfair, negative impact on individuals or groups, it accepted the news organization’s view that the opinion piece was not referring to a pool of bilingual candidates as inherently inferior due to being composed of bilingual or francophone individuals, but rather due to the pool consisting of fewer individuals overall.
Similarly, Council accepted the view that the statement on “express entry” falls within the latitude of opinion writing in that it refers to the advantage that bilingual candidates may have, rather than the speed at which they are hired. In this way, the opinion piece is commenting on the policy, which is a legitimate role of opinion writing, rather than the individuals who may, from the writer’s view, enjoy such an “advantage.”
While the NNC understands that readers may have strong and significantly different views on the matter, for the reasons outlined above, Council dismissed the complaint.