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.

[Raymond Théberge]

Any delay in tabling a bill will inevitably delay its passage.

In the original version of Bill C‑32, the language in Part VII did not thwart Justice Gascon's decision. It's extremely important that I mention that.

In some ways, the timing could not be better with respect to the Federal Court of Appeals decision. It clarifies the principles needed to give Part VII more teeth. We should even incorporate some aspects of the decision into Part VII to ensure their sustainability.

[Raymond Théberge]

To begin with, the parts of the act that deal with what you just talked about need to be reviewed. Part VII addresses federal institutions' obligation to take into account the needs of official language minority communities, and the Federal Court of Appeal recognized that obligation in its decision. It also recognized the need to ensure that the programs and policies in place support the development of those communities—not hurt it. The government also needs to be proactive by taking positive measures to ensure the development and vitality of official language minority communities.

Turning to the elements that address French specifically, I would say that if the objective is to achieve substantive equality, the act cannot be implemented in the same way across the country. Some regions are home to communities that are extremely vulnerable, such as out west. We are talking about very small communities, including those in my province of Manitoba. To achieve substantive equality, it's important to implement the act in a differentiated way. The Supreme Court provided a very clear definition of substantive equality, which is the objective.

On the compliance front, Bill C‑32 sets out the authority to enter into enforceable agreements with federal institutions, make orders and establish conflict resolution mechanisms, powers that are not currently available. Administrative monetary penalties could be added to the bill. That would provide a much larger tool box, giving the commissioner's office access to various resolution mechanisms, depending on the situation. Right now, the commissioner's office can make recommendations, something it has been doing for years.

Furthermore, the discussion around how to better protect French should also focus on mechanisms within the federal government. When it comes to language of work, it is crucial to recognize that English is the predominant language in the workplace. That means the appropriate conditions need to be in place to ensure that federal government employees can work in French, whether it is their mother tongue or their second language.

The way things are currently structured greatly favours one language over the other. That issue receives very little attention in the discussion around modernizing the Official Languages Act. The idea of providing better language training receives some consideration. That is a first step, but it is absolutely vital that part V of the act, which deals with language of work, really give employees the tools they need to speak their first or second language. That means changing how things are structured, because, as I see it, French very often receives secondary treatment within the federal government. That has been the case for years now.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Commissioner, for appearing before the committee today. I haven't yet had the opportunity to meet you formally, as a member of this committee, but I am fortunate to represent a large community of Franco-Ontarians. They account for 60% of all Franco-Ontarians. Every five years, the census tells us that we are losing ground.

I read the statement you put out on January 28, 2022, regarding the Federal Court of Appeal's decision. My fellow member Mr. Godin mentioned the decision.

What is your reaction, and what do you recommend?

You touched on Bill C‑32, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we can protect French through this study.

As far as the commissioner's responsibilities are concerned, what aspects can be strengthened in the bill?

[Raymond Théberge]

Certain things would need to be added to Bill C‑32, but I think they could be addressed during the next few parliamentary committee meetings.

For instance, the bill does not cover administrative monetary penalties, specifically in relation to institutions like Air Canada and federally regulated private organizations. The bill, in its current form, does not include all the necessary tools, but we know what the next iteration should look like to ensure improvement.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Commissioner, sorry to have to cut you off, but as you know, we have a limited amount of time.

From what you were saying, I gather that the process can be fast-tracked because we have all the necessary tools.

Do you mean to say that Bill C‑32 does what is expected, and gives you the tools to make a positive impact and protect French?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Commissioner.

I think we are coming to the same realization.

You mentioned the ongoing discussion and the fact that the modernized iteration of the act would be introduced soon, further to Bill C-32. The bill was brought forward at the end of the previous Parliament, before the Prime Minister called the election. Consequently, the whole process has to start over. We are looking at a time frame of 100 days.

You just flagged one of the biggest problems, the fact that you don't necessarily have the tools you need to do your job.

Are you with those who are in favour of moving quickly or those who want to take the time required to create an enduring tool that will ensure French is adequately protected? Let's be clear, here. The objective isn't to protect English. Yes, it's part of the objective, but the real threat is to French.

In your view, should we fast-track the modernization of the Official Languages Act, or conversely, should we take the time to come up with a piece of legislation that will give the commissioner the tools to achieve tangible results and protect the French language?

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Okay.

I would like to very quickly ask another question.

In Bill C‑32 sponsored by Ms. Joly, the official languages minister at the time, an increase in funding was announced for French immersion schools, but not necessarily for schools designed by and for francophones.

Don't you think it would make sense to start by increasing funding for schools designed by and for francophones?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you for the clarification.

If I understand correctly, Bill C‑32, which amends the Official Languages Act, offers Quebec employees the opportunity to work in the language of their choice, that is, either in French or in English. I remind you that our study focuses on the government's measures to protect and promote French in Quebec and Canada.

Does offering employees the opportunity to work in the language of their choice, as included in Bill C‑32, achieve the objectives of promoting and protecting the French fact in Quebec?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you.

From a legal point of view, the application of language law to private companies under federal jurisdiction has a twofold aspect. On the one hand, it is a matter of federal jurisdiction, and on the other, it falls under Quebec provincial jurisdiction. Both may apply, but in the event of a clear conflict between the two legislative levels, the principle of federal paramountcy applies. Thus, if there is a vacuum in federal law, Quebec law will be able to apply, but if federal law conflicts with Quebec law, federal law will apply.

So it is indeed a bit dangerous for the federal government to legislate on matters governed by Bill 101, because federal law is likely to apply in a preponderant manner. Bill C‑32 is not as far-reaching as Bill 101. Moreover, Quebec's Bill 96 makes Bill 101 even more potent.

In Bill C‑32, what is interesting is that Bill 101 is used as a model for regions outside Quebec, therefore for regions with a francophone concentration, which have yet to be determined. In my opinion, these should be the regions bordering Quebec, namely northern New Brunswick, eastern Ontario and Labrador, and perhaps a few others.

We have to do both at the same time, that is to say, we have to apply Bill 101 to federal undertakings, and with respect to the other regions, federal law must intervene in favour of the right to work in French.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many legal experts in Quebec have said that the Quebec government could apply Bill 101 to businesses under federal jurisdiction. Yet Bill C‑32 clarifies that enterprises under federal jurisdiction may choose between Bill 101 and the Official Languages Act.

Some have said that the Official Languages Act is going to be modelled on Bill 101. What we saw in Bill C‑32 is that the part concerning the Official Languages Act provides for the right to work in French, but also to work in English. The logic of bilingualism always informs the Official Languages Act.

First, will Bill C‑32 prevent Quebec from implementing Bill 101?

Second, in the Official Languages Act, is Bill C‑32 a copy of Bill 101?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you for the question.

I do think that Bill C‑32 can be a good starting point. If it could be reintroduced, we could recommend a number of amendments.

The positive aspect of Bill C‑32, as I was saying earlier, is that it shows that the paradigm is starting to shift—in other words, that the federal government is realizing that it cannot treat French and English in the same way by saying it wants to protect English in Quebec and French in other provinces. The federal government must realize that the French language is in decline, including in Quebec, and especially in Montreal, and it must make efforts on that front. That is the first thing to do. That realization had already begun in the white paper that preceded Bill C‑32, but it must be taken further.

In concrete terms, I am seeing three things. First is the application of Quebec's Charter of the French Language, commonly referred to as Bill 101, to federally regulated private businesses. I think that is preferable to what was proposed in Bill C‑32, a sort of an option plan between Bill 101 and a federal equivalent, provisions in federal legislation that are somewhat based on Bill 101 while not going as far.

I feel that it is preferable to opt for the application of Bill 101, as it is the Office québécois de la langue française that has the know-how in providing private businesses with guidance on francization, much more so than the Commissioner of Official Languages. The commissioner is more specialized in public institutions. This is a matter of consistency, of know-how, as Bill 101, especially once it has been amended through Bill 96 in Quebec, goes further than what was set out in the federal legislation. So including the application of Bill 101 in a federal piece of legislation by referring to that bill would be the preferred solution. The federal legislation can then draw on Bill 101 to protect the right to work in French in francophone regions outside Quebec—essentially those located around that province.

So there is a way to do both, but I feel that the application of Bill 101 is preferable for Quebec.

Second, there is a lot of work to be done on federal public servants' right to work in French. According to a survey, nearly 44% of francophone federal public servants don't feel comfortable working in French. A rule must absolutely be implemented, and the two languages must not be put on an equal footing. When that is done, English predominates in reality. Precedence must be given to French in federal offices, across Quebec and in certain francophone regions. That will not preclude the government from providing certain accommodations and services in English, but priority must be given to French in the legislation, as English predominates in reality. The law must re-establish the balance by giving French precedence.

In terms of culture—and we discussed this earlier—it must also be ensured that federal subsidies are more directed toward citizen groups that promote French culture in Quebec, not only toward groups that promote culture in other languages.

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you for the question.

If we were to apply a territorial logic to Ontario, it would mean having to determine which regions had a concentration of francophones. That would enable the federal government to focus its efforts on promoting French in those regions.

This logic is, after a fashion, implicit in Bill C‑32. According to this bill, employees have the right to work in French in Quebec and in regions where there is a strong francophone presence.

As for Ontario, the federal government could make a greater effort to promote French, particularly in border region regions like northeastern and eastern Ontario.

The scholarly literature has shown that when efforts are concentrated in areas where many people speak the language, they can support its long-term vitality.

[Guillaume Rousseau]

I would draw a distinction here.

If the goal is strictly to ensure respect for individual rights, then the personality-based approach can be useful. There may occasionally be criteria for a sufficient number of people, but in theory, anywhere you might be in Canada, you can use the language of your choice. In terms of individual rights, the approach has some merit.

However, as for the development of the language and its survival through generations, the personality-based approach does not really yield effective results, because the dominant language will systematically take precedence.

It is therefore important to determine whether the objective is only individual rights, or whether it is a broader objective to enhance the vitality of the language and its development. Consideration should probably be given to both. Traditionally, however, the federal act places a little too much of an emphasis on language rights. The approach has not been very effective from the socio-demographic standpoint in the 54 years since the adoption of the initial Official Languages Act.

As for the application of Bill 101 to federally-regulated undertakings, the Quebec language act, the Charter of the French Language, goes beyond Bill C‑32 in protecting the right to work in French. It is not just an act, but also a fundamental right. The Office québécois de la langue française possesses the expertise required to interact with private undertakings and coach them through the francization process. The federal Commissioner of Official Languages, is much more specialized in dealing with public institutions. In the few instances in which the Commissioner attempted to have the act enforced in private undertakings like Air Canada, these efforts were only moderately successful.

Official Languages

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as Quebeckers prepare to celebrate their national holiday tomorrow, we can be proud of a federal government that protects and promotes the French language.

I am proud that our government has introduced Bill C‑32, which will modernize the Official Languages Act and bring it into the 21st century.

Could the Prime Minister tell the House how this bill will establish true equality between our two official languages?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent question and his leadership at the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Our Bill C‑32, essentially a modernisation of the Official Languages Act, will protect and promote French in all areas of Canadian life, in our cultural institutions, in our public service and in international relations.

Bill C‑32 guarantees that francophones have the right to work and be served in French, whether they live in Quebec or somewhere in the country with a strong francophone presence. I hope that all parties will join us so we can quickly pass Bill C‑32.