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.

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

My first question is for the Department of Canadian Heritage representatives. I'd like to get a short answer.

Are there any parts of Bill C‑32 that would change the allocation of official languages funding in Quebec in a way that favours French?

[Sarah Boily]

I'll respond to that first and then let Ms. Boyer add what she wants to say about the promotion of French.

Several measures in Bill C‑32 address the objective of protecting and promoting French. The most significant and newest are those respecting federally regulated private businesses. The government has decided that the private sector has a role to play in protecting and promoting French. Bill C‑32 would grant Canadians the right to be served in French in federally regulated private businesses. That applies both in and outside Quebec in regions with a large francophone presence. It would also grant workers in those businesses the right to work in French. Those are some of the key measures in the bill.

Other approaches have been proposed to encourage and strengthen arts and culture, which enhance the vitality of French. So the media and agencies such as telefilm Canada, Radio-Canada and the museums would continue to be supported. Those are some key examples that come to mind in connection with expanding the place of French.

[Julie Boyer]

I'm going to turn the floor over to my colleague Sarah Boily, who has worked on those clauses of Bill C‑32.

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

Earlier on, Mr. Blackburn spoke about some problems related to the modernization of the act. Among other things, he mentioned that the Quebec bill to strengthen Bill 101 would apply to federally regulated organizations, but that Bill C‑32 would give companies the option to comply with Bill 101 or with the Official Languages Act, which will also create confusion.

How is that supposed to work?

I'd like to hear your comments first, Mr. Lacroix, and then Mr. Blackburn's.

[Angela Cassie, Chair, Board of Directors, Société de la francophonie manitobaine]

Good afternoon.

I would like to thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

I am currently on Treaty 1 land, homeland of the Métis nation. The Manitoban francophonie is spread over territory that is subject to several treaties and the ancestral lands of several indigenous peoples.

My name is Angela Cassie, and I am chair of the Société de la francophonie manitobaine, the SFM.

As the organization representing the francophone community of Manitoba, SFM is concerned with the advancement of all the community's areas of activity with the help of its network of collaborators and partners.

Today I would like to discuss three major themes: the urgent need to modernize the Official Languages Act, the priorities of the Manitoban francophonie and the efforts required to achieve the French-language immigration target.

First, I would like to mention that SFM supports the claims of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada regarding the act.

The work leading up to Bill C‑32, which we have been awaiting for many years, was not done in haste. On the contrary, it is the result of several studies and consultations dating back many years. Any more delays would only further weaken the position of French in our communities. Parliament should therefore begin its work immediately.

Having said that, I agree, as do all francophone communities, that Bill C‑32 still exhibits some major deficiencies that must be corrected.

First of all, the Office of the Commissioner of Official languages must be granted expanded powers to make orders and impose penalties. At the moment, the mere recommendations that he makes are not strong enough to protect minority languages.

That brings me to the next deficiency in the bill: it is vitally important to clarify further part VII of the Official Languages Act. Parts of the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique case should serve as a basis for establishing the necessary mechanisms to ensure compliance with part VII and to clarify the government's expectations with regard to “positive measures”.

In addition, to guarantee a common and generous interpretation of the act, the government must designate a single central agency to coordinate the act's implementation.

Lastly, Bill C‑32 should include a francophone immigration policy in order to restore the demographic weight of the francophonie.

I will now explain the immigration issue at greater length before concluding.

In 2016, Manitoba's francophone community adopted a strategic plan based on a consultation conducted by a research team from the Université de Saint-Boniface. That plan, which was developed for a 20‑year horizon, based on 5 lines of action, and projected 33 results, is now being implemented by the network of Manitoba francophone organizations. In our opinion, to achieve the intent of the Official Languages Act, particularly that of part VII, governments must consider this action plan in developing and evaluating programs. The government must act as a partner in enhancing the vitality of our communities.

Accueil francophone, an SFM initiative introduced to facilitate the intake and settlement of francophone newcomers to Manitoba, has provided services to the vast majority of those newcomers. In spite of our efforts in this initiative and Accueil francophone's ability to act, only 4.3% of immigrants had French as a spoken language in 2019. We must have specific and bold francophone immigration targets.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

All right.

My last question is for Ms. Crist.

Ms. Crist, you met with Minister Joly to discuss the modernization of the act when she was Minister of Official Languages. What points were addressed during your conversation? Do you feel that some of them were overlooked in the former Bill C‑32?

[Darius Bossé, Lawyer, Power Law]

The day-to-day delays in implementing the modernization of the act obviously causes harm that may at some point become irreparable. Yes, that's unfortunately the case.

We had a chance to see the first version of an attempted modernization of the act at the end of the last Parliament. As my colleague noted, there were many problems with that version. We see now that the communities and organizations have joined forces to inform the government clearly what those problems are and how to solve them.

For example, the Treasury Board's obligations must be more clearly established. Binding directives must be issued precisely to provide a framework for implementing the various parts of the act. The obligation to consult must be clarified. We now know that it's an obligation, as the Court of Appeal stated in its decision. It held that the government had breached its obligation and had to take the needs of the community into account, which it has not done.

In the case of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, the FFCB, the government was also required to adopt a linguistic clause under which it could intervene and ensure that the act was properly implemented by the province. In the Court of Appeal's view, however, that had not been done as the obligation to adopt linguistic clauses was not stated in Bill C‑32. These are the kinds of clarifications that the organizations and communities are asking the government to make in order to solve the problems in the next version of the bill to modernize the Official Languages Act. We hope that next version will be introduced shortly.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Power, you say there's still a lot of work to do since Bill C‑32 isn't good for francophones outside Quebec, Quebec francophones or Quebec anglophones.

Should we make new regulations or further clarify the text of the act to make part VII more robust?

What do you think is the difference between opting for new regulations and making part VII more specific, more robust and more comprehensive in the act?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being with us today. This is a very important day with regard to the matter at hand.

I'm going to address my questions to Maître Power and Maître Bossé.

First of all, I commend both of you and your colleagues for all the legal work you've done over the years before the courts in having them recognize and uphold the rights of our linguistic minority communities across the country.

I read with great interest the recent Federal Court of Appeal judgment concerning the FFCB and welcome not only the timing of it, but also the essence, and more specifically to the part of the judgment that overturns Justice Gascon's decision.

In your legal opinion, in what way is this recent decision helping or hindering the proposed amendment of the OLA found in, I'm going to call it the old version of Bill C-32 that was first introduced in June 2021?

[Mark Power]

The best way to protect French using the Official Languages Act, whether in Ottawa, Vancouver, New Brunswick, Quebec City, Montreal or Lévis, is to make a central agency such as the Treasury Board responsible for administering the act.

Right now, no one is responsible. No one puts his foot down. No one in cabinet pounds the table when necessary. No one is requiring any federal department to adopt a certain type of conduct.

If the Treasury Board becomes responsible for administering the act and compels colleagues and the departments to take action, that will definitely help solve many problems, whether it be signage or the possibility of travelling across Canada in French, whether in Gatineau or Bagotville.

I would ask you please to turn to page 105 in bookmark B of the briefing book. There you will see that Bill C‑32 would have enabled the Treasury Board to take certain actions to promote French but that it requires nothing significant. On page 107, the bill provides that Treasury Board would be required to monitor, audit and evaluate, among other things.

We need more than that.

[Mark Power, Lawyer, Power Law]

Good afternoon.

My name is Mark Power, and I'm a lawyer. I am here today with my colleague Darius Bossé, who comes from Madawaska.

I grew up in Toronto. My name is English, but my first language learned and still understood is French. I'm more comfortable in French. My mother comes from northern Ontario, from Kapuskasing, more specifically, and my father is from Timmins. My mother's family comes from Shawinigan.

We represent the legal team of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, or FFCB. You just heard from its president, Ms. Crist. We are here to say a few words about the judgment rendered by the Federal Court of Appeal barely a few weeks ago, in late January. The focus of our presentation will really be on part VII of the Official Languages Act. There are other things that could be said, but we want to stick to part VII.

In support of our remarks and to assist in the work of the committee and its analyst, we have provided some documentation. Those of you who aren't here in person received it by email and those who are in the meeting room, in Ottawa, have received a briefing book. For those who have the PDF version, we've included bookmarks to help you find your way through the documentation. At the very start, you'll see a short five-page document, in English and French, of course, summarizing our comments on the Federal Court of Appeal's decision.

Then there are five bookmarks. Bookmark A is the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, which we have annotated in part to make it easier for you to read. Certain passages are highlighted in yellow. Bookmark B is an excerpt from the current version of the Official Languages Act. By underlining and striking text, we have shown the effect that Bill C‑32, which was tabled last June, would have had if it had been passed as is and had received royal assent. Bookmarks C and D are the bills that your predecessors previously introduced and considered. Lastly, bookmark E is Bill C‑11, which is under consideration. It concerns broadcasting.

Ten years later—it took 10 years—the Federal Court of Appeal has rendered an absolutely fantastic judgment promoting the advancement of French in Canada. At last. It has helped clarify matters pertaining to part VII of the Official Languages Act, particularly as regards the federal-provincial agreements, where the Government of Canada decides to withdraw from an area of shared jurisdiction.

At least two major gains have been made before the Federal Court of Appeal, and we should point them out very briefly. They concern consultation and linguistic clauses. I'll begin at the end. What's significant is that Bill C‑32, which was introduced last June, isn't good for French outside Quebec. It's very good for French in Quebec, and it isn't very good for Quebec anglophones. An enormous amount of work remains to be done to reform the federal Official Languages Act so that it helps us live in French, whether we live in or outside Quebec.

[Lily Crist, Chair, Board of Directors, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique]

First of all, we would like to thank you for inviting us to outline the reality and challenges of francophones of British Columbia.

Members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we are counting on you to promote our rights and support the development of the francophone minority communities.

Today we would like to talk to you about the modernization of the Official Languages Act on two levels. At the national level, we have many priorities in common with our national representative, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, respecting the modernization of the Official Languages Act. We suggest that four essential changes be made to Bill C‑32.

First, we recommend that a single central agency, the Treasury Board in this instance, be made responsible for coordinating administration of the act across the entire federal government with the authority to compel other government bodies to provide results.

Second, we seek clarification of part VII of the act. The concept of positive measures that are necessary to enhance the vitality of the official language minority communities must be clarified, especially by specifying the way in which institutions must consult the minorities on policies and programs and by adding robust linguistic clauses to the federal-provincial-territorial agreements.

Third, we would like there to be an obligation for the government to develop a francophone immigration policy expressly designed to restore the francophonie's demographic weight.

Fourth, we would like the government to grant the Commissioner of Official Languages authority to impose sanctions and make orders, including authority to impose fines for breaches of language obligations under the act.

With respect to British Columbia more particularly, our request is related to our lawsuit that culminated in the Federal Court of Appeal's judgment rendered on January 28, 2022. Further details are provided in the open letter that we published last Friday, February 11, 2022.

I would also like to discuss the devolution agreements. We have been in court for some 15 years as a result of that type of agreement. They are not conventional agreements respecting the administration of a program or shared jurisdiction. The court held that the province was sovereign in the matter of devolution for the term of the agreement. Under this type of agreement, we systematically lose our services as we have no language legislation or policy respecting French-language services in British Columbia. We would like the act to be more specific about this type of agreement.

We would also like to alert you to certain challenges facing our communities that merit your attention. The 4.4% francophone immigration target has not been reached for nearly 20 years.

Remedial and restorative measures are urgently required. According to a report by the Commissioner of Official Languages released last November, failure to reach that target has resulted in a shortfall of approximately 76,000 francophone immigrants in our communities. That figure could represent the entire francophone population of my province.

[Raymond Théberge]

With respect to the first issue you raised, you're referencing legislative asymmetry, which seems to be part of Bill C-32. The goal of Bill C-32 is to achieve substantive equality, and I think those two concepts are quite different. Substantive equality is well defined by the Supreme Court in terms of how we can achieve substantive equality between linguistic communities. It doesn't mean we have to do the same thing for each community. Legislative asymmetry means that you bake into the legislation rights for one group and not for the other.

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

Mr. Théberge, I have a great deal of respect for you. My goal is not to catch you out or trip you up. However, I feel that this is a very important bill and that, once it is passed, you will either be a victim of it or you will be better equipped because of it.

So, I feel we need to take the time to do things right and make good amendments so that you can see some results. You said yourself that there are no results at the moment.

Bill C‑32 was introduced, but you said that it had no teeth. So we have to give ourselves the means and the time to do things right.

Let me ask you again: do we have to pass this bill quickly?

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

Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but my time is very short. You answered my question: you met with the Minister, but, as far as you recall, you did not address the situation.

Mr. Commissioner, let me remind you that you told my colleague Ms. Kayabaga that the next Official Languages Act must meet the needs not only of today, but especially of tomorrow. So let me remind you of some chronology.

In June 2021, Bill C‑32 was introduced. Parliament was dissolved in July. In August and September, we were in an election campaign. In October, the Cabinet was formed and decided to give itself 100 days to table a new version of the bill. Then along came the holiday season, and we understand that. It is now February 2022.

I asked you earlier whether we should move quickly to pass this new bill. You just said that when you met with the Minister, you did not deal with the child care agreements. You told me earlier that we need to pass the bill quickly.

Could you give me your definition of “quickly”?