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 .

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The current wording of the bill requires departments to ensure that the commitments under subsections (1) to (4) of section 41 of the act, as amended by Bill C-13, are implemented by the taking of positive measures.

This amendment would express the first obligation mentioned in part VII of the act more directly. While retaining the idea that it is a matter of several positive measures and not of one, the amendment would remove the discretion provided by the current wording of the bill, which we just discussed when considering amendment CPC-26. The amendment would thus remove a department's ability to judge that a measure is not appropriate or important.

By removing the possibility of such a value judgment, the amendment would require departments to put in place positive measures to meet the commitments under subsections (1) through (4) of section 41 of the act, as amended by the bill.

[Warren Newman]

Thank you.

There is a margin of discretion when implementing positive measures. The phrase “that it considers appropriate” gives some discretion to federal institutions, which are still in control of the design and delivery of their own programs and services. This phrase gives them some leeway in implementing this commitment and obligations.

That said, Bill C‑13 sets forth a series of positive measures and guidelines that add more. These guidelines are very helpful and are consistent with the Federal Court of Appeal decision that was mentioned. In particular, the measures must be concrete and be taken with the intention of having a positive effect, while respecting the needs to protect and promote. I don't need to read out all of these provisions, but that is quite considerable.

When you look at how part VII has evolved since 1988, the federal government has gone well beyond the original commitment, which was a solemn commitment, but was not intended to create obligations. Now, the obligations are there and they must be implemented. Having said that, there still needs to be some discretion or leeway for federal institutions to implement these measures “that it considers appropriate”. That is the wording we prefer to use.

[Marcel Fallu]

The obligation to take positive measures was introduced into part VII of the Official Languages Act in 2005, through Bill S‑3.

I won't repeat everything that stakeholders have argued before this committee, but let's just say that over the years, a number of criticisms have been made about implementation. The jurisprudence has also evolved. The latest decision on this issue is the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling in the case between the FFCB and ESDC.

The wording “measures that it considers appropriate” found in Bill C‑13 and the current wording used in subsection 41(2) of the act have the same meaning, although the words are slightly different. In essence, it is still a binding obligation on federal institutions.

As Ms. Boyer mentioned, adding the word “necessary” could introduce a bit of a filter. That is probably not what was intended, but we think that this language could create a ceiling, or a requirement to demonstrate why something is necessary. In contrast, the language found in the current act and the language found in Bill C‑13 gives federal institutions the flexibility to decide the best means.

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you very much for the question.

The amendment targets the beginning of the proposed wording in the bill, which reflects the obligations that would be set out in part VII of the Official Languages Act. There is indeed an obligation. The words “positive measures” remain as they are. The wording proposed in Bill C‑13 reflects the case law, and that is also reflected in the amendment. What is new, however, is the word “necessary”. The question here is who decides what measures are necessary. Should the department determine or judge whether a given positive measure is necessary, or should the stakeholders determine and demonstrate that?

Here, the word “necessary” could have a limiting effect on the measures that would be taken. There is indeed a judgment call in determining whether an action is necessary. Is it necessary for the stakeholders or necessary for the department? The department might feel that it is not necessary. Stakeholders would then have to demonstrate why it is necessary. Therefore, it could have an unintended limiting effect.

The language found in Bill C‑13, that is, “that it considers appropriate”, gives the department the option to impose them. Thus, the burden of proof does not apply, in this case.

Mr. Fallu could probably provide more details.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In my opinion, this is another very important amendment. After hearing from many witnesses, including representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, I think that using the word “les” instead of “des” in French makes all the difference. There is only one letter that is different, but the word “des” is vaguer than the word “les”.

I will read the amendment and then I will present my arguments to try to convince my colleagues to adopt it.

Amendment CPC‑26 proposes that Bill C‑13, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 32 on page 11 with the following:

the positive measures necessary for the implementation of the commitments under—

In other words, in addition to the change that I just explained, the amendment seeks to replace the words “that it considers appropriate” to “necesssary” in reference to positive measures.

I will summarize.

A ruling was handed down in May 2018 after the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique, or FFCB, was forced to fight in court for services to be offered in French and for investments to be made in the francophone community. It talked about employment centres, among other things. I think that everyone is familiar with this case and its outcome. If I remember correctly, the judge ruled in favour of the FFCB based on the distinction between the words “les” and “des” in French. It was the case of FFCB v. Employment and Social Development Canada.

Then, there was Bill C‑32, which was well done.

The government then appealed the Federal Court's decision. You will understand that it is rather odd for the federal governmnet to take an organization that defends minorities to court.

In reference to federal insittutions, Bill C‑13 indicates “that the positive measures that it considers appropriate are taken”. I have heard that people want to replace the word “les” with “des” in French but we will see what happens later in committee. It is important to leave in the word “les” in French and to remove the phrase “that it considers appropriate” so that the number of rights-holders can be enumerated rather than estimated. That is the debate we just had in committee.

If we adopt amendment CPC‑26, it would strengthen the bill. I think that the goal of all members here is to properly support both official languages. If, in the near future, anyone argues in favour of replacing the word “les” with the word “des” in French, it will take us back even further than Bill C‑32.

Amendment CPC‑26 is vital to show respect for what we are doing here, for the FFCB and for the FCFA, which brings together nearly 200 organizations that represent francophone minorities outside Quebec. Even though this amendment may seem trivial because it is so short, it is vital. It seeks to do two things: to leave in the word “les” rather than changing it to another word like “des” in the French version of the bill and to remove the words “that it considers appropriate”.

I presented my arguments, as did my colleagues, on eliminating the idea of consideration.

I will stop there, Mr. Chair. I think it is very important that we adopt this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Just so everyone understands, are you referring to clause 4 on page 11 of Bill C‑13?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Ms. Terrien and Ms. Boyer, I'm going to phrase the question differently.

You can understand the aim of my colleagues Mr. Serré and Mr. Godin. We are trying to create an ideal or perfect legislation, to improve it as much as possible.

Could the subamendment and the amendment that the committee is currently studying be worded differently or better to improve Bill C‑13 even further?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Boyer, you are precisely talking about tools under provincial jurisdiction. Will the amendment require school boards to provide them?

If the school boards say they will not provide the data, the federal government can't get it because school boards are under provincial jurisdiction. Even as an MP, sometimes you have to ask a school board for permission to talk to students. It's fine when you're friends with the principal, but if not, you get locked out.

So imagine if you asked the school board for lists of students! I have done it before because I wanted to send a congratulatory letter for graduation. Some school boards agreed to provide me with the lists, but others turned me down because it's at their discretion.

How are you going to estimate the number of francophone or anglophone children in a province if you run into the same issue we are currently experiencing? In no way does Bill C‑13 require school boards to provide lists. Therefore, the resulting estimate could be inaccurate.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am moving that Bill C-13, in clause 21, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 11 with the following:ing formal, non-formal and informal opportunities for members of English and French lin‐

I want to begin by thanking the Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences, or RESDAC, and its president, Mona Audet, for the organization's participation in the committee's study.

RESDAC clearly showed the importance of two things: recognizing the education continuum, from early childhood to high school, and the availability of this education in French in official language minority communities.

Beyond formal learning, we need to make room for continuing education and literacy. We need to make room for education that doesn't always lead to a diploma or certification but is nonetheless crucial to the fabric of our society.

As we prepare to enshrine a robust francophone immigration program in law, I think we need to ensure that the federal government supports programs, learning and organizations that promote cross-cultural sharing between newcomers and those who are already here.

Even today, we face significant challenges. More than half the francophone population has trouble communicating and understanding what it's reading. It suffers from linguistic insecurity. Someone who struggles to communicate in their language will have an incredibly difficult time contributing to the vitality of their community and could end up becoming yet another francophone who has been assimilated. I would add to that the postpandemic landscape, the labour shortage, the looming threat of recession and the impact of technology.

Francophones in minority communities also need skills tailored to their circumstances, so they can face this postpandemic reality. The proposed amendment to clause 21 is especially relevant because adding the language “formal, non-formal and informal” would open the door to a much more holistic approach to learning. It would help establish a new paradigm, a new way for formal educational institutions and players in the non-formal and informal learning world to work together more effectively.

Once again, I want to thank Ms. Audet from RESDAC and all those working in the informal learning sector for their hard work. They showed us clearly that this is the way forward.

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

I'd like to finish updating my pile of documents, if I may, Mr. Chair.

The purpose of CPC‑22 is grammatical. It seeks to strengthen proposed subsection 41(2). As per your instructions, Mr. Chair, I will read it clearly.

I am proposing that Bill C-13, in clause 21, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 11 with the following:

(2) The Government of Canada, recognizing and taking into account that French.

The point of this addition is just to give the provision more teeth, but not baby teeth, as I've said in the past. I want to make sure that the provision is effective. All that's being added is “and taking into account”.

Baby teeth are not forever teeth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Through CPC‑21, at point (a), I am proposing that Bill C-13, in clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 11 with the following:

41 (1) The Government of Canada shall (a) enhance and protect the vitality of the English and French

At point (b) of CPC‑21, I am proposing that clause 21 be amended by replacing line 6 on page 11 with the following:

port and assist their development, taking into

At point (c) of CPC‑21, I am proposing that clause 21 be amended by replacing line 9 on page 11 with the following:

(b) foster the full recognition and use of both En‐

At point (d) of CPC‑21, I am proposing that clause 21 be amended by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 11 with the following:

due to the predominant use of English, shall protect and promote the French language.

I would just like to add, Mr. Chair, that this amendment merely corrects language in the bill to make it easier to understand. All it does is tidy up the syntax, as far as I'm concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 51 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages. Pursuant to the order of reference adopted on Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming its examination 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.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I want to let the committee members know that all the necessary connection tests were done before the meeting. Some issues were detected, and that's why we are getting started a bit late. I want to inform members participating remotely that I will not recognize them if they are not wearing the prescribed headset.

Today, we are resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑13.

Welcome to the officials joining us today to support the committee and answer our technical questions.

From the Department of Canadian Heritage, we have Julie Boyer, Marcel Fallu and Chantal Terrien.

From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Alain Desruisseaux.

From the Department of Justice, we have Warren J. Newman.

Lastly, from the Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Carsten Quell.

Thank you again for being here to share your wise counsel from time to time.

We are picking up clause-by-clause consideration where we left off at the end of Tuesday's meeting, clause 21. We are on CPC‑21.

Over to you, Mr. Godin.

Official Languages

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. We are the first government to recognize the decline of French in the country and that is precisely why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill.

As an Acadian who lives in New Brunswick in an official language minority community, I know the importance of protecting and promoting French across the country, including in Quebec.

However, we also have to ensure that we are there to protect official language minority communities. Like stakeholders from one end of the country to another, I look forward to the passage of the bill. Bill C-13 will really change things in the lives of Canadians.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the “West Island story” actors keep spouting nonsense.

Canada is an anglophone country, says the member for Westmount. French is not in decline in Quebec, says the member for Saint-Laurent, in between two trips to Greece. I cannot support Bill C-13 because it contains certain Conservative and Bloc amendments, says the member for Mount Royal.

These are Liberal government members. Will they vote in favour of the Liberal government's Bill C-13?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑13 is a good bill. It recognizes that French is threatened and that more needs to be done to protect French both within and outside Quebec.

However, the Conservative-Bloc coalition plans to vote against this bill. It is doing everything to defeat it.

We, on the Liberal side, will continue to fight to defend French across the country.