Bill C-13

An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages

An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts

Part 1 amends the Official Languages Act to, among other things,
(a) specify that all legal obligations related to the official languages apply at all times, including during emergencies;
(b) codify certain interpretative principles regarding language rights;
(c) provide that section 16 of that Act applies to the Supreme Court of Canada;
(d) provide that a final decision, order or judgment of a federal court that has precedential value is to be made available simultaneously in both official languages;
(e) provide for Government of Canada commitments to
(i) protect and promote French,
(ii) estimate the number of children whose parents are rights holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ,
(iii) advance formal, non-formal and informal 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;
(f) clarify the nature of the duty of federal institutions to take positive measures to implement certain Government of Canada commitments and the manner in which the duty is to be carried out;
(g) 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 in Canada, 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;
(h) 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;
(i) provide that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is required to adopt a policy on francophone immigration and that the policy is to include, among other things, objectives, targets and indicators;
(j) provide that the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of cooperating with provincial and territorial governments;
(k) provide that the Treasury Board is required to establish policies to give effect to certain parts of that Act, 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;
(l) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to enter into compliance agreements and, in certain cases, to make orders; and
(m) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to impose administrative monetary penalties on certain entities for non-compliance with certain provisions of Part IV of that Act.
It also makes a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act .
Part 2 enacts the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act , which, among other things, provides for rights and duties 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 then, at a later date, in regions with a strong francophone presence. That Act also allows employees of federally regulated private businesses to make a complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages with respect to rights and duties in relation to language of work and allows the Commissioner to refer the complaint to the Canada Industrial Relations Board in certain circumstances. It also provides that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for promoting those rights. Finally, Part 2 makes related amendments to the Canada Labour Code .

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, everyone involved wants us to move forward with consideration of Bill C‑13 as quickly as possible. With that goal in mind, I will therefore withdraw my comments.

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

Thank you, Mr. Drouin, for calling me a good mediator. I have been one in the past, but at that point the opposition parties worked well with the governing party.

I would like to introduce an amendment. In terms of the wording, Mr. Chair, I will draft it with you. I want to reflect my intentions. The people who have the expertise, like the legislative clerks and Madam Clerk, will likely be able to help us.

I move that consideration of Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be extended by four meetings. In addition, I move that consideration of clause 54 of Bill C‑13 be postponed to the end of clause-by-clause consideration and be subject to debate.

That's my amendment. The purpose is to be able to discuss clause 54, which deals with the Charter, among other things—

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

I would like to remind the committee that, if the preliminary study had been done, we would not be in this mess which started almost a year ago, but that's another story.

Mr. Beaulieu's motion calls for extending the duration of the clause-by-clause study of Bill C‑13 by the number of meetings necessary. I don't understand. Is he suggesting we hold meetings indefinitely? Can he give us an idea of what we can expect?

The last time, we agreed unanimously on eight meetings, after which we would see if it was necessary to add more. However, if we agree to hold a number of necessary meetings, that means we could debate every amendment for hours on end. It would be endless.

So I would like to get a clarification from Mr. Beaulieu.

I would also like to hear the amendment Mr. Godin wants to propose. He seems to be the master of ratification and a reasonable person.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We are resuming our deliberations.

I will read out Mr. Beaulieu's motion:

That, in accordance with item 5 of the motion adopted on December 1, 2022, the committee extend the duration of its clause-by-clause study of Bill C‑13 by the number of meetings necessary to consider and debate any amendments that committee members wish to propose.

I will give the floor to Mr. Godin, and then we'll come back to Mr. Beaulieu.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

The ball is in your court, Mr. Beaulieu. You asked for an emergency meeting on Bill C‑13. You need to be more specific about what you are asking of the committee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We requested this discussion under Standing Order 106(4) because, as we have seen, to date we have adopted only 20 of the 71 clauses to be considered. We have just two meetings left—one and a half in fact, given the time we have just lost. It is clear we will not have time to debate all of the clauses.

I would like to remind you that this is the first major reform of the Official Languages Act in 52 years. French is declining across Canada, including in Quebec. Now really is a critical time for the language issue. The government has admitted that French is in decline. Therefore, we must act and we must have sufficient time to get it right.

Ideally, we feel we need enough time to go through all of the clauses or, at the very least, to debate clause 54 of the bill, which is very important. It sets out the application of the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated businesses. All the opposition parties agree. We want to at least review up to clause 54.

I will kick off the discussion. That is the aim of today's meeting.

First of all, this is important to Quebec. Quebec expressed its expectations in a document about a year and a half ago. A while later, it specified its expectations in a document where it proposed amendments. Not much of that was incorporated into Bill C-13. Principles of asymmetry were mentioned. The problem is that the Official Languages Act is based on the principle that official language minorities are categorized by province. That means that in the 1960s, when there was a major movement, the Official Languages Act stipulated that in Quebec—the only francophone jurisdiction in America—the federal government would defend English. We cannot go on like this. This must be changed, not only for Quebec's sake, but also for francophones outside Quebec. The future of French in Quebec matters to them because Quebec is also the market for artists from francophone and Acadian communities outside Quebec. Quebec is a key source of teachers and francophones who move to various regions of the country. I feel it is essential to do things right, to have the time to do—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

I apologize for the long delay. There were apparently technical difficulties, which I am sure will be dealt with.

Welcome to meeting number 52 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

On March 2, 2023, the committee received a request by four of its members pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) to discuss extending the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13.

On that topic, I will give the floor to Mr. Beaulieu.

Telecommunications Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-26. I want to say hello to all of the families who are taking advantage of March break to do fun activities in the beautiful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

As I was saying, Bill C‑26 seeks to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system. It also seeks to provide a framework for the protection of the cyber systems that are vital to national security or public safety and create frameworks for the exchange of information.

It goes without saying that these issues are very important to the official opposition, of which I am very proud to be a member. It is no secret that my Conservative Party of Canada colleagues and I are, and always have been, great defenders of public safety. It is part of our DNA.

Industry and experts have asked the government many times to create cybersecurity standards, but it is important to act intelligently.

There is a lot of instability in our modern world, and threats can come from anywhere. Cyber-threats are nothing new. This is not a recent thing. It is clear that this weapon is used as much by foreign governments, which have their own motives, as by individuals or groups seeking to do harm or make money, for God knows what motives. It happens everywhere, on both small and very large scales.

Here are a few examples that illustrate this reality: data stolen from institutions or companies and held for ransom; the leak of personal information that affected millions of Desjardins members or customers in Quebec; and possible election interference from Beijing.

No, we are not going to question the outcome of previous elections here. We do not believe that interference changed the overall outcome of those elections. However, electoral integrity is the foundation of our democracy, and it must be ensured and maintained. As a Canadian, I have the privilege of going abroad, and people recognize that we are concerned about protecting our democracy. We need to put measures in place to continue that.

The fact remains that, over the past eight years, the government has been slow to crack down on cyber-threats. This is yet another example of a foot-dragging government finally coming up with a bill, but it turns out that bill has flaws that call for more thorough study in committee.

I know for a fact that this issue is really important to Canadians. We will do the work to make sure this bill is the one Canadians need and deserve. Yes, people want to be safe. Actually, since I was elected in 2015, my constituents have regularly told me they are increasingly concerned about this issue, especially over the past year.

What it comes down to is that confidence in the government and its ability to provide what people need and to keep its promises is essential. It is hard to have confidence in a government that keeps messing up pretty much everything.

I could go on and on about Bill C-13 as an example of a government that makes promises but does not deliver. The government recognizes the decline of French across the country, even in Quebec, but it is trying to impose a bill that does little to address that decline. I know that that is not the subject today, but everyone knows how much I care about official languages, and I had to pass on the message.

I would like to conclude by sharing a very real situation that occurred in my riding. One of my constituents wrote to me about a serious handling error made by Passport Canada.

I would like to inform the House that this is the first time this situation has been discussed publicly. He sent me a letter, and I would like to read it.

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am taking the time to write you a brief note to let you know about what I would describe as a “serious” security flaw within Passport Canada pertaining to the confidential information of Canadian citizens.

It is very important in terms of a timeline.

In early January, 2023, I applied for passports for my three children at Passport Canada.

On February 1, 2023, I received three envelopes containing our passport applications, which were rejected because we forgot to tick a box.

Inside the envelope I also received the rejected application of a woman from British Columbia. I therefore had in my possession her full identification, her passport and her credit card information. I returned those very sensitive documents by express post with a tracking number to Passport Canada.

I filed a complaint out of principle thinking that, although it was just a mistake, it was still worth reporting through Passport Canada's website, so I followed the official procedure. I got a call back. Passport Canada apologized. Nothing more. They refused to compensate me for the cost of returning the documents belonging to the woman from British Columbia. I was told, however, that our applications would be prioritized.

On February 15, 2023, I received four envelopes. I was quite pleased, as I thought we'd finally received our children's passports, but we have three children, not four. As it turns out, our children's passports weren't inside those envelopes. Instead, there were the passport applications (including full identification, passport, original birth certificates, complete credit card data, etc.) of four people from across Canada. These are four different people who have no connection to one another.

What is not stated in the letter is that these people were from Sherbrooke, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta. That is incredible.

A few days later, we finally received our three children's passports.

As it is obvious, I don't feel I need to explain in my letter the seriousness of receiving the full identification of these people and information that could be used to carry out fraudulent financial transactions by total strangers.

We can't fathom that such mistakes would be made by a recognized federal organization such as Passport Canada, which manages the personal and financial information of so many Canadians. We can't believe that these are two isolated incidents.

This is a very simple task that requires putting the right documents in the right envelope. That's it.

I no longer trust Passport Canada's administration at all. That is why I am entrusting you with the identity documents, which don't belong to us.

I no longer trust Passport Canada's “internal” complaint process, as it will certainly try to cover up this failure, and will only offer an apology.

I am most pleased to read the following excerpt from the letter:

We trust our MP.

I'm always available to answer any questions.

Yes, cybersecurity matters, but the government also needs to take responsibility for the existing systems. It cannot even handle paper documents, but now it wants to allow a minister to step in and be able to manipulate and control information. I am concerned.

I have shown that we have a problem in Canada. We recognize that. We have a problem when it comes to cybersecurity, but we have a problem on other levels too. I would like to see this government take responsibility.

Like my constituent who gave me the documents mentioned, I had to ask myself, what do I do with these documents now? Do I return them to Passport Canada, or do I give them to the minister responsible here? That is a very important question.

Let us get back to the subject at hand, Bill C-26. I am very interested in having measures in place to protect us. It is important that we have confidence in our systems. As a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, I have a lot of confidence in the Conservative members who sit on the committee, as well as members of the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and even the Liberal Party. Things are normally supposed to be neutral in committee.

I must say that I believe in the future. Having said that, we need to put measures in place to have concrete results. Let us work in committee.

Official Languages

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have reached the final analysis of Bill C‑13 on modernizing both official languages.

Tomorrow, in committee, members will address the amendments on the issue of language clauses to ensure that francophone minority communities will indeed receive the money invested by the federal government when an agreement is reached between the provinces and the federal government or between the territories and the federal government. Such clauses would ensure equity for all francophones in the country. Every francophone advocacy group agrees on that.

I would like the minister to clearly indicate whether she agrees with these language clauses, please.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the French language is declining in Quebec and across Canada. That is why is it important that Bill C-13 be passed.

Once again, I do not understand the Bloc Québécois's position. The Bloc wants to kill Bill C-13 and is doing everything it can to withhold support for official language minority communities in this country.

As a proud Franco-Ontarian, I am still hoping to have the support of the Bloc Québécois to ensure that Bill C-13 is passed. This is important for the survival of the French language and the vitality of these communities. We must work together to achieve this goal.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 is undermining the French language in Quebec as we speak. A dozen Liberal MPs from Quebec are considering voting against their own bill.

There are still a few characters to discover in our favourite show, “West Island Story”, but we have already met a few, including the member for Saint-Laurent, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and the member for Mount Royal.

These members are opposed to simply recognizing the Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13. These same members were among those who abstained from recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation in 2021.

Does that seem like a coincidence?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We are the first government to recognize the decline of French in Quebec and across Canada. It is important that Bill C-13 have teeth to support official language minority communities across the country.

I encourage all members of the House to ensure that Bill C‑13 is passed as quickly as possible. It is important to official language minority communities across Canada.

I hope that the Bloc Québécois will join us. At present, it seems that the Bloc will vote against Bill C‑13, and that is not acceptable.

[Marcel Fallu]

Thank you.

Mr. Serré, you talk about regulations. Part VII has provided for regulatory authority since the act was strengthened in 2005. However, to date, that authority has not been exercised. So there are no regulations in place now, but the regulatory authority remains. It is moved to the new subsection 41(11) of the act proposed by Bill C-13, but it is essentially the same regulatory authority as is found in the current version of the act. The purpose of regulations for applying part VII would be to regulate how the obligations are to be met.

In addition, I would note that the new subsections 41(6) to 41(10) of the act proposed by Bill C-13 clarify the steps to be taken by federal institutions in relation to positive measures, to address potential implementation issues. All of this can also be further clarified through regulations, as well as through Treasury Board policy instruments. These instruments are a new feature of Bill C-13, as the current version of the act does not provide for this possibility in part VII.

So there are ways to be even more specific in providing guidance to federal institutions. However, as much as I would like us public servants to be the ones to vote on budgets, that is not the case.

[Warren Newman]

The sentence in new section 21(5) of the act proposed by clause 21 in the French version of Bill C-13 does not end after “mesures positives”, as there is no period. The current wording states “que soient prises les mesures positives qu'elles estiment indiquées pour mettre en œuvre les engagements énoncés aux paragraphes (1) à (3)”. Thus, it is a matter of appropriate, timely measures.

On the other hand, the English version is very strong.

Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation of the commitments

It seems to me that it's even stronger than saying “the positive measures that it considers appropriate are taken....”

There is also “the positive measures necessary for the implementation of the commitments under subsections (1) to (3) are taken.”

To me, that's pretty strong wording.

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

Mr. Chair, the wording of the new subsection 41(5) of the Official Languages Act proposed in clause 21 of the government's Bill C-13 requires “that the positive measures that it considers appropriate are taken for the implementation of the commitments under subsections (1) to (3).” We will not revisit the debate surrounding the phrase “it considers appropriate”.

However, this same government is now proposing an amendment that would, in my opinion, water down or soften Bill C-13 by suggesting, in the French version, “la prise de mesures positives”. The word “les” is eliminated from line 29 of the French version of the bill to include the word “de”, which has the same meaning as “des”.

I'll return to my example from earlier. Assuming the existence of 10 positive measures, LIB-14 would allow for the application of only one, or three, four, five, or all 10. We don't know. The current wording of this bill would require federal institutions to implement all 10 measures. Why diminish and water down this bill?