Bill C-32 (Historical)

An Act for the Substantive Equality of French and English and the Strengthening of the Official Languages Act

An Act to amend the Official Languages Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Official Languages Act to, among other things,
(a) codify certain interpretative principles regarding language rights;
(b) provide that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for exercising leadership within the Government of Canada in relation to the implementation of that Act;
(c) provide that section 16 of that Act applies to the Supreme Court of Canada;
(d) provide for Government of Canada commitments to
(i) protect and promote French,
(ii) contribute to an estimate of the number of children whose parents are rights holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
(iii) advance opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives, including from early childhood to post-secondary education, and
(iv) advance the use of English and French in the conduct of Canada’s external affairs;
(e) provide for certain positive measures that federal institutions may take to implement certain Government of Canada commitments, including measures to
(i) promote and support the learning of English and French, and
(ii) support sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities and protect and promote the presence of strong institutions serving those communities;
(f) provide for certain measures that the Minister of Canadian Heritage may take to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society;
(g) provide that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is required to adopt a policy on francophone immigration;
(h) provide that the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of cooperating with provincial and territorial governments;
(i) provide for rights respecting the use of French as a language of service and a language of work in relation to federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and regions with a strong francophone presence;
(j) provide that the Treasury Board is required to monitor and audit federal institutions for their compliance with policies, directives and regulations relating to the official languages, evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of policies and programs of federal institutions relating to the official languages and provide certain information to the public and to employees of federal institutions;
(k) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to enter into compliance agreements and, in certain cases, to make orders; and
(l) permit employees of federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and regions with a strong francophone presence to make a complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages with respect to rights and duties in relation to language of work, and permit that Commissioner to refer the complaint to the Canada Industrial Relations Board in certain circumstances.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Dr. François Larocque]

Between Bill C‑32, the first version of the bill, and Bill C‑13, there was a change in the preamble.

In Bill C-13, there is now a sentence stating that the Official Languages Act applies “during emergencies“. I think it’s the very last sentence in the preamble. The pandemic taught us the importance of this reality. Legislation to protect official language minorities must apply in times of crisis.

We also saw the temporary and unfortunate suspension of rules for bilingual signage at the beginning of the pandemic. This was allowed under the interpretation of the Minister of Health’s regulatory powers. It seems to me, however, that this exercise of authority should not have been allowed. It would have been possible to allow the import of necessary health products, like disinfectants and medication, with bilingual labels. Once again, we saw that French and English are not on a level playing field, and that French can be disregarded in the name of other imperatives.

It’s true that public health and safety are important, but so is upholding official languages. It must be included in the Official Languages Act. It must also be included in the Emergencies Act. The preamble in the Emergencies Act could include a reminder to this effect, meaning that the Official Languages Act also applies when the former act is invoked.

We must remind the minister responsible for public safety that implementing emergency plans in response to a crisis must be done in compliance with the Official Languages Act.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Théberge, thank you for being here today. As a Franco-Ontarian, I want to thank you for the work that you do for the francophonie and that you have done for the Manitoban francophonie.

Earlier my colleague agreed with you that Bill C‑13 should be passed as soon as possible. So we should proceed with the clause-by-clause review of the bill taking your recommendations into consideration. Michel Bastarache, Linda Cardinal, Michel Doucet, Rémi Léger, Benoît Pelletier, Martin Normand and Alexandre Cédric Doucet also say the time to act is now.

As you said, consultations have been conducted on the earlier legislation, Bill C‑32, the present Bill C‑13 and the government's action plan for official languages. Should we continue discussing the importance of passing Bill C‑13 and enriching and supporting the action plan?

[Raymond Théberge]

We've done a lot of work for the parliamentary committees, the communities and many stakeholders in recent years, and many reports have been proposed, prepared and submitted. Now I think we're at the action stage.

I propose a number of amendments in the brief I've submitted to the committee. It's important to bear in mind that Bill C‑13 is an improvement over the earlier Bill C‑32, which was intended to be an improvement on the present Official Languages Act. The time to act is now.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Major improvements to positive measures have been made in bills C-32 and C-13. What positive measures should we focus more on?

[Martin Normand]

We spoke out about Bill C-13 as soon as it was introduced. Generally speaking, it's consistent with our ambitions. We had issues with certain parts of BillC-32, but they were resolved by Bill C-13.

Today we suggested some amendments to clarify certain aspects, but the bill has what it takes for us to be able to move forward.

[Martin Normand, Director, Strategic Research and International Relations, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne]

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

The ACUFC welcomed this bill when it was first introduced. The fact that all federal institutions will now be required to take the positive measures they consider appropriate to ensure more opportunities for francophone minorities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives, including at the post-secondary level, is a major improvement over Bill C-32. Even more significant, institutions will now have to deliver on this commitment knowing that the federal government has acknowledged the specific situation of French in this country.

We nevertheless wish to make three suggestions for clarifying part VII with respect to cooperation with the provinces, scientific research in French and other administrative measures.

I will start with cooperation with the provinces.

Federal institutions have a duty to ensure that positive measures are taken to enhance the vitality of the francophone minorities and to support and assist their development.

However, under the new subsection 45.1(1) introduced by the bill, the federal government recognizes the importance of cooperating with provincial and territorial governments in the implementation of part VII of the act. This provision, as drafted, could be interpreted to mean that the federal government's commitment to the vitality of the minorities is subject to a sharing of jurisdictions.

We believe the federal government cannot walk away from this commitment. Its willingness to cooperate with the provinces and territories must not undermine the vitality, development or maintenance of strong institutions. Instead the bill must establish favourable conditions for developing positive measures that will have a direct and continuing impact and be effectively and equitably implemented across the country.

We suggest that every reference to cooperation with the provinces and territories be reviewed to dispel any ambiguity regarding the federal government's exercise of its spending power to enhance the vitality of the minorities. If the implementation of positive measures were to depend on cooperation with the provinces and territories, the federal government's measures might ultimately be applied unevenly if reluctant governments refused to cooperate.

Now I will discuss scientific research in French.

The official languages reform document states that the federal government wishes to support the creation and dissemination of scientific information in French. However, we feel that the wording of new subparagraph 41(6)(c)(iv) is more restrictive and less ambitious. It provides that one of the positive measures the federal institutions might take would be to "support the creation and dissemination of information in French that contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge".

The reform document suggests that those measures would support the creation and dissemination of scientific knowledge created by the francophone research community. However, the bill implies that all types of information are considered equal and that they may come from various sources. For example, the translation into French of information produced by federal institutions could qualify as scientific knowledge, which would be redundant, having regard to what is already provided in part IV of the act, which concerns communications with the public.

We suggest that this subparagraph be reviewed to make it more consistent with the commitment expressed in the reform document. The original version was much more foundational for the post-secondary sector than the version proposed in the bill.

Turning now to other administrative measures.

A modernized Official Languages Act is not an end in itself. It is merely one piece, albeit a very important one, in the whole architecture of Canada's language regime. Other administrative measures must emerge, including two that will definitely follow from this bill.

The first such measure will be regulations establishing the terms and conditions under which the obligations set forth in part VII are to be performed. Those regulations may clarify the nature of the positive measures, the consultations they require, the accountability models respecting them, and the direct effects of government decisions. However, new subsection 41(3) does not establish a schedule on which those regulations will be made. The same possibility was introduced in the 1988 act, but no regulations subsequently emerged. We suggest that the act include a timetable for making regulations respecting part VII.

The second measure is the policy on francophone immigration. We simply want to express a wish, that the policy that is developed accommodate the international clientele of post-secondary institutions, an immigration pool that is essential if we are to achieve the objectives of the federal government's francophone immigration strategy.

Many stakeholders have great ambitions for this act, but history tells us you can never legislate on political leadership. A firm moral commitment from the political class will always be necessary. We ask you to lend substance to this commitment and to cooperate so the bill is promptly passed and we can work together on the next foundational measures that will enable Canada to progress toward substantive equality of English and French.

Thank you.

[Linda Cardinal]

In other words, you're asking me if I have a conflict of interest here.

I sat on the minister's expert panel on Bill C‑32, not on the panel on Bill C‑13. Don I'm no one's parrot. What I'm saying is that my impression is that Bill C‑13 is a very promising compromise that—

[Stéphanie Chouinard, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada and Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and colleagues.

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.

Many of you have heard me speak in previous consultations on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, an important project that should enjoy multipartisan support but that, for many reasons, has been mishandled for the past five years.

I have also written on the subject in newspapers and news magazines across the country in recent years. For the members of the committee, I have sent the clerk a short press review in which I explore in greater depth a number of aspects of the former Bill C‑32 and Bill C‑13, which I won't have time to address in my statement, such as the role of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and that of French Canadian civil diplomacy. However, I urge you to take a look at it should it interest you.

For the sake of concision, I will focus on three points this afternoon.

First, allow me to say a few words about the principle of substantive equality, which underlies many aspects of the bill.

For the first time, we now have an express legislative acknowledgement of a principle that has long been at work in official languages governance: to achieve equality between the official languages, one of them merits different support, particularly with regard to minority institutions, which play a completely different role than that performed by institutions in a majority sociolinguistic context. This is a major advance in the official language field, one that guarantees, in particular, that the legislative framework will reflect the interpretation of the Supreme Court, where this principle has been relied upon since the late 2000s.

However, there is an abiding misunderstanding in the general population of the meaning of substantive equality, judging by the reactions the bill has triggered in English Canada. There is a genuine need for public education on the meaning and implications of substantive equality to prevent the new version of the Official Languages Act from being interpreted as a mere rejection of the official and equal status of English and French. I think there's an urgent need for clarification in the current political context in order to prevent potential backlash against the French language outside Quebec.

Second, I want to note the federal government's wish to commit to enhancing opportunities for access to post-secondary education in the minority official language. For years now, this field has been in a crisis that peaked with the Laurentian University debacle in 2021. We all know how positively the vitality of our communities is affected when minority youth have a chance to pursue their studies beyond grade 12 in their own language.

The federal government commendably wishes to be part of the solution so these institutions can pull back from the edge of the abyss and at last plan for the future. However, it is critical that the federal government not release the provinces from their responsibility to invest in what is still their area of jurisdiction.

Your committee heard me discuss this topic last June, nearly one year ago to the day, during your study on federal support for minority post-secondary institutions. I felt the point was important enough for me to repeat it. In the long term, a disengagement by the provinces from minority post-secondary education could potentially mean those institutions would have to start over from scratch. We must ensure that federal government investment remains foundational.

Lastly, with regard to proposed section 44.1, which concerns francophone immigration, I find the language used in the bill disappointing. I don't think it goes far enough toward making the necessary changes to the policies and practices of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in the Canadian francophonie that are unacceptable and, in some instances, even disgraceful. We are already living with the result of nearly two decades of inadequate action in the field, and the target set in 2003 is so far from ever being met that the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada felt it had to sound the alarm this past winter. The new Official Languages Act should be decidedly more directive so it can ensure that we not only meet actually restorative targets that enable us to maintain the demographic weight of francophones outside Quebec relative to the majority society, but also that we can provide our communities with the support they need to welcome and support these newcomers appropriately.

In conclusion, despite these remarks, I would like to leave you with a final message: don't let perfection be the enemy of the good. Here we are 34 years after the last amendment of the Official Languages Act, and it is high time we saw a modernization of the act. Although it can definitely be improved, Bill C‑13 would be a major step toward securing the future of English and French in Canada.

It is my hope that, in 2022, we can leave our mark on the history of the official languages with an act that has at last been modernized and that will finally help us move forward to a future in which the two official languages are more strongly supported and defended across the country.

Thank you. I will be pleased to continue the discussion.

[Alain Dupuis]

I'd like to correct an assumption here. We never said there were 25 amendments either. A few years ago, we drafted a model bill in which we conducted a complete analysis of the Official Languages Act. Many of these requests were included in either Bill C‑32 or Bill C‑13, and now the six remaining amendments represent what's still to be done to produce the best possible bill for francophone and Acadian communities.

[Liane Roy]

First, we consulted all the parties as well as our members; we referred to the model bill we had proposed and to all the studies we had conducted in the context of the meetings of the standing committees on official languages of the House of Commons and the Senate. However, since the Bill C‑32 case in particular, we've exhaustively consulted all the parties, members and communities. We've also consulted people who aren't members of the FCFA but who work in the official languages field. So we've consulted all…

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Pardon me for interrupting. Whom did you consult so you could cut 25 amendments down to 6?

To put the question more clearly, did you consult my colleague Mr. Samson or my colleague the former Minister of Francophone Affairs for Ontario, for example?

Whom have you consulted in the past few months, since Bill C‑32 became Bill C‑13?

[Liane Roy]

As you know, we've been working on this for five years, even more. We began thinking about it in 2009. So it's been a very long time.

Many of you have witnessed the various efforts we've made: the model bill the FCFA presented in 2019, the involvement of our committees in Ms. Joly's consultations, our participation, as you know, in the studies conducted by the official languages committees of the House of Commons and the Senate, our in‑depth analysis of Ms. Joly's official languages reform document in February 2021, our actions concerning Bill C‑32, which was introduced in the last Parliament, and so on.

There's nothing surprising about our position. Our demands haven't changed; we believe we've said what we had to say. Now it's up to you to do the work.

Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-13, which is particularly important to the Bloc Québécois.

Today's strategy from the Liberals, supported by the NDP, was to move time allocation on a bill that is vital to protecting French in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada.

Bill C‑13, which is currently under consideration, represents the culmination of efforts to modernize the Official Languages Act. This objective is set out in the mandate letter of the current Minister of Official Languages, as well as that of her predecessor.

In the September 2020 Speech from the Throne, the government recognized the special status of French and its responsibility to protect and promote it, both outside and within Quebec.

The stage seemed to be set for the federal government to protect French in Quebec. It appeared the government would include the reform, requests and demands of those dealing with the decline of their language on a daily basis, namely Quebeckers.

However, in both Bill C-32 from the previous Parliament and the current version, the Official Languages Act reform completely ignores the demands made unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly and the Bloc Québécois about protecting French in Quebec.

In fact, the federal government's bill flies in the face of the Quebec National Assembly's Bill 96. One of the objectives of Bill 96 is to extend the application of the Charter of the French Language throughout Quebec. Despite that, in their interventions and communications, the Liberals claim to support Bill 101 and brag about being champions of the French language.

Since the Prime Minister and Liberal members claim that they have always supported the Charter of the French Language, how can they introduce a bill that will prevent the Quebec government from applying that charter within its own territory? Based on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, provincial laws can apply to federally regulated businesses as long as they do not directly violate any applicable federal law.

Quebec has long been asking Ottawa to allow Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated businesses based on that ruling. A resolution supported by all parties in the Quebec National Assembly and adopted on December 1, 2020, stated that the Charter of the French Language “must be applied to companies operating under federal jurisdiction within Québec” and called on the Government of Canada to “make a formal commitment to work with Québec to ensure the implementation of this change”.

The message could not be any clearer, but what did the Liberals do at the first opportunity? They imposed on Quebec a language regime that subjects all federally regulated businesses to the Official Languages Act, while at the same time destroying Quebec's ability to apply its Charter of the French Language to businesses operating on its territory.

That should not be taken lightly. There is even a serious and real danger for French in Quebec with Bill C‑13. In the event of a difference between the federal regime, which is based on bilingualism, and Quebec's regime, which is based on the primacy of French, the federal regime would prevail.

The Minister of Official Languages can repeat as much as she wants that Bill C‑13 will protect French in Quebec as well as Bill 101, but that is not true. It is factually incorrect.

Bill C‑13 seeks to apply the bilingualism regime to Air Canada. Francophones will be given the right to complain in the event that the right to work in French is breached. It has been shown many times that this model cannot protect the rights of francophones to work and be served in their language. Despite the thousands of complaints against Air Canada over the years, we see that for these non-compliant organizations, French is nothing but an irritant. How will extending this model to all federally regulated private business stop the decline of French?

What is more, Bill C‑13 confirms the right to work in English at federally regulated businesses in Quebec. I repeat, the Official Languages Act is reinforcing bilingualism, not protecting French. Some will say that the bilingualism approach seems reasonable at first glance. It leaves it up to the individual to interact in the language of their choice. However, when we take into account the linguistic and demographic dynamics in which that choice is made, this approach has devastating and irreversible consequences on French. Do not take it from me. It is science.

Professor Guillaume Rousseau from Université de Sherbrooke explained this phenomenon to the Standing Committee on Official Languages in February:

...virtually all language policy experts around the world believe that only [an approach that focuses on just one official language] can guarantee the survival and development of a minority language....

The...approach may seem generous, since individuals may choose which language to use among many, but it is in fact the strongest language that will dominate....In real terms, the federal government should do less for English and more for French in Quebec.

As my party's science and innovation critic, I must insist on the importance of basing our decisions on scientific data. Ottawa must listen to reason, listen to the science and respect the evidence. Science cannot be invoked only when it suits our purposes and ignored when it does not, and the Prime Minister needs to take that into account.

When we look around the House of Commons, we quickly see that the Liberal Party stands completely alone when it comes to the application of Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. It has always been easy for the Prime Minister to say that he is in favour of Bill 101 as long as that did not require him to take any action, politically speaking. Today, it is clear that French is declining in Quebec and Canada and that its decline is accelerating so fast that the Prime Minister himself has been forced to recognize it and express concern. He still says that he is in favour of Bill 101, but he is not walking the talk.

We are witnessing yet another attempt by the Liberal government to create a wide, untenable gap. On the one hand, the government wants to be the champion of French because it feels the public pressure to protect French better, including in Quebec. On the other hand, it completely refuses to let Quebec control its own language policy. The result is that the Liberal Party now stands alone in its stubbornness. We saw that when my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît introduced Bill C-238, which seeks to subject all federally regulated businesses to the Charter of the French Language. The Bloc, the Conservative Party and the NDP supported it, but the Liberal Party did not.

Let me make this clear. The Bloc Québécois will not support Bill C‑13 unless and until amendments are made that enable Quebec to be the master of its own language policy. The federal government must acknowledge that the Quebec nation is grappling with anglicization, and it must introduce a differentiated approach that recognizes and respects Quebec's unique linguistic reality. That is why explicit recognition that the Charter of the French Language takes precedence over the Official Languages Act for federally regulated businesses in Quebec is a minimum requirement. That is what the Bloc Québécois and the National Assembly of Quebec want, so that is what Quebec needs.

Bill C-13—Time Allocation Motion

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, if we look at the components of Bill C-32, our action plan and Bill C-13, it is clear that the common thread is the desire to achieve substantive equality. That is why we are going further with our bill. We want to ensure that we make our contribution to achieving substantive equality. It will not happen overnight. We recognize that French is in decline in this country. French is in decline in Canada. That is why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill. We absolutely want to correct this situation.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to once again thank my colleague who has been working in this field for several decades. I am extremely grateful to him for that and for the work that he does here in Ottawa as the chair of the official languages caucus.

Positive measures are indeed a very important part of Bill C-13. The stakeholders we spoke to really wanted to see improvements in the definition and handling of positive measures compared to former Bill C-32. That is exactly what we did.

We took care to closely examine every word and every comma in our new bill because we want to ensure that it will really help official language minority communities. We want the positive measures to be clearly defined, because they are a very important component.