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 .

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mount Royal is against recognizing the Charter of the French Language in Bill C‑13, as are the member for Westmount and the member for Saint‑Laurent.

Now, a Liberal minister is threatening to join them and to vote against a Liberal bill. There are starting to be quite a few Liberals who are opposed to Bill C‑13.

At this point, one has to wonder whether the Quebec Liberal caucus dissidents, the rebels, are the ones who want to defend French.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear about our commitment to do our fair share to protect and promote French across the country, including in Quebec, and to protect and promote our official language minority communities.

I want to take a moment to thank the committee members who are working to advance this file.

With the passage of Bill C‑13, we will be able to give the Commissioner of Official Languages the tools he needs to do his work, which is essential. We will also be seeing changes for federally regulated private businesses to make sure that people can work and get service in French.

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

Mr. Speaker, the rifts in the Liberal caucus over Bill C‑13 are playing out like a musical. Tensions between the different gangs escalate from one day to the next. It is a real West Island story.

Yesterday, the member for Mount Royal broke ranks and announced he would vote against Bill C‑13 if it mentions the Charter of the French Language in any way.

Today, in a dramatic turn of events, a Liberal minister from the West Island also threatened to vote nay. A Liberal minister opposing a Liberal bill, that makes for good theatre, but will the minister responsible call them to order—

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, she needs to convince her crew of that. In the same column, it was suggested that anglophone MPs from Quebec who are opposed to the Charter of the French Language might go so far as to quit the Liberal Party rather than vote for Bill C‑13. To hear them talk, life as an anglophone Quebecker in Montreal is really tough. They make Westmount and Mount Royal sound like the gulag.

There are francophone and Acadian minority communities that are desperately waiting for Bill C‑13, but the Liberals might let it die in order to appease the West Island. Who is going to put these members in their place?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. We look forward to seeing Bill C-13 passed, as do stakeholders across the country. That is why we have introduced an ambitious bill that that will make a real difference in the lives of Canadians. We are the first government to recognize the decline of French across the country, including in Quebec. I look forward to the passage of this bill. As I said, it is a bill that will make a real difference for all Canadians.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to what Chantal Hébert stated this morning, the anglophone Quebec wing of the Liberal government would rather see Parliament prorogued than pass Bill C‑13 as amended by the opposition, because, horror of horrors, it would recognize the Charter of the French Language. All House business would have to stop because a few West Island MPs do not want to protect the French language. Those members do not want to protect French on the West Island, in Quebec, in Acadia, or in the rest of Canada.

Can the Prime Minister assure us that Bill C‑13 will not end up in the circular file?

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

Madam Speaker, after denying the decline of French in Canada, the Liberal member for Saint-Laurent doubled down by making misleading and unacceptable comments about Bill C-13 at the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

She is going against her own minister for the sole purpose of derailing this long-awaited bill that will better protect the French language across the country. Out of respect for all francophones, will the Prime Minister or the minister show some leadership and ask the member for Saint-Laurent to withdraw her remarks and provide an official apology in the House?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to challenge the misinformation on the Charter of the French Language at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. He even refused to correct this misinformation to reassure anglophone Quebeckers about the real effects of Bill C-13 and Bill 96. He is not challenging the misinformation and he is not correcting it. If he is not denouncing and correcting it, then he must be condoning it.

At the end of the day, is the position held by the members for Saint-Laurent, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount and Mount Royal on French in Quebec also shared by the Prime Minister? Is that it?

Francophone Community in Nickel Belt

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury, we are fortunate to have many community organizations with a social, cultural and educational focus, such as Collège Boréal, the University of Sudbury, ACFO du grand Sudbury, Place des Arts du Grand Sudbury, Le Voyageur, La Nuit sur l'étang, the West Nipissing Arts Council, Théâtre du Nouvel-Ontario, and several school boards that contribute to the development of the francophone community.

In 1971, the first public high school, Franco-Cité, was established in Sturgeon Falls, where student activists took control of the school for several days. In January, at Franco-Cité, we announced that, in 2022, we reached the target of 4.4% francophone immigration outside Quebec for the first time.

That is why we must all work together to get Bill C-13 passed as quickly as possible, so we can promote and advocate for linguistic minorities across Canada. This bill will promote French and protect all official language minority communities across the country.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding Clause

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

moved:

That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.

Mr. Speaker, rest assured that I am excluding you from this argument, but I get the impression that Quebec does not have many friends in the House. This has been made particularly evident by what seems to be—and this may seem harsh—the Liberal government's descent into hell. The government is essentially the only one to blame, and it is useful in this context to revisit—and, again this may sound harsh—a recent debacle. I will let you be the judge of that. Speaking of judges, we will, once again, have to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada on this matter.

I have made a little list. Bill C-21 on gun control was a lesson in clumsy backtracking, an unruly fiasco and a retreat that was anything but strategic. There was not even a whiff of them admitting to an error—an implicit error—and no recognition of the fact that, indeed, one must consider the safety of civilians and women while also preserving the legitimate privileges of sport hunters.

One example is the electoral map. I remember going to the Gaspé region last summer, just a few days after the Prime Minister, when the first new version of the electoral map had been considered and the riding of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia was disappearing. The Prime Minister was in the region and had not said a single word about the fact that the regions in Quebec were being weakened. There might even have been a threat regarding the expressed desire of the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine to keep the file. The Prime Minister, however, never said a word; again, the government is essentially its deputy minister.

There is Medicago, a company, a flagship in technology research that, due to a kind of negligence perpetuated over time and interventions that were often too late, risks seeing the achievements of Quebec engineering go to Japan, subject to the good will of Mitsubishi, which will certainly be a major loss for Quebec and Canada.

There is the acquisition of Resolute Forest Products by Paper Excellence, which is owned by Sinar Mas. That represents 25% of cutting rights in public forests in Quebec and does not qualify in the new Bill C-34, which does not even protect it. Good heavens, if that is not protected, what will Bill C-34 protect?

There are obviously the health transfers. That is really very interesting. Of everyone here, we see that only the Bloc Québécois is both speaking for Quebec and representing the provinces' common front. The Bloc Québécois is the only party to stand up for Yukon, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Alberta. We will wait for the thanks from the benches next to us. Only the Bloc Québécois is standing up for the will of the provinces, the territories and Quebec, while the others are being opportunistic or lazy. We will be told that what we are doing is a waste of time. It is not a waste of time; it is very revealing of how things work.

There is the McKinsey case. I do not have time to go through everything about McKinsey. There would be far too many secrets to be brought to light, like McKinsey and ethics, McKinsey and lobbying, McKinsey and defence, McKinsey and standing offers, and so on. McKinsey's former boss himself—who is surely not as naive as he tried to make us believe in committee—said that, if he had been the client, he would not have signed the contract that the Government of Canada signed. That is interesting. There is also McKinsey and immigration, as well as McKinsey and Century Initiative. One hundred million Canadians, how nice. That is quite a lot, given Quebec’s inability to absorb, over time, in French and with our values, the number of immigrants that that requires. I asked Mr. Barton whether he had considered Quebec. They did not consider it at all. It was not even on their radar.

Based on the ignorance expressed, my word, I want to be the boss at McKinsey. He does not work that hard and says he does not know anything. Also, I suspect the pay is not too bad. McKinsey has a role to play in border management and, of course, in language and identity.

There is also the exploitation of Roxham Road. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean mentioned, according to recent revelations, not only do we have criminal smugglers, we now have an all-inclusive package on offer, on both sides. A bus ticket is provided and migrants are openly and brazenly sent to Roxham Road. No one likes handcuffs. However, a brief moment of discomfort from being handcuffed is worth it for migrants, who are very happy to have reached Quebec; of course Quebec is paying the costs of welcoming them in a humane manner.

There is the appointment of Ms. Elghawaby. I will not repeat the whole speech and I do not want to make this personal. That said, it was clear that the government has an extraordinary ability to isolate and protect itself. If our homes were as well protected as the government, we would not need insulation.

Of course, there is also the referral of Quebec’s secularism law to the Supreme Court of Canada in the hope of overturning it.

Beyond that, the divisiveness over Bill C-13 is quite dramatic. I would not want to invite myself to a Liberal caucus meeting, and I think its members would not like that either, but there must be some very passionate conversations within that caucus. It must be just as fascinating as the Conservatives’ conversations about abortion. There may be a few little things that need to be resolved. For our part, everything is going very well. The federal government may also go to the Supreme Court over Bill 96, which deals with the French language.

We have now come to the motion on the notwithstanding clause, which may also go before the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like to speak about a very interesting aspect. In principle, Trudeau senior said that the will of Parliament had to ultimately prevail. That is why the 1982 Constitution, which we consider to be a despicable document, includes this principle of ensuring the primacy of the democracy of parliaments. Let us keep in mind that we have never signed on to that Constitution. We have been pointing that out for a few weeks now.

That was quickly tested. In 1988, the Ford decision established, on the one hand, that the use of the notwithstanding clause was legitimate and, on the other hand, that the role of the court was not to engage in pointless discussions, but to rule on the substance and wording of things.

Let us not forget that Mr. Lévesque firmly invoked and inserted the notwithstanding clause in all of the laws passed by Quebec’s National Assembly. Many fits were had, but Canada survived.

It is important to understand the current government’s legislative or judicial approach—or flight of fancy. By invoking federal documents such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution, and by appointing new judges as old ones leave, the Prime Minister hopes to replace the decisions of the provincial legislatures and of the House of Commons with those of the Supreme Court of Canada in order to modify by interpretation the Canadian Constitution. As we said earlier, the Constitution is much more theirs than it is ours.

Having had the opportunity over time to appoint judges, the Prime Minister is confident that he has a Supreme Court of Canada whose constitution, pardon the pun, will be favourable to him. He wants to modify the Constitution by having it interpreted by judges he has appointed. This happens elsewhere in the world, and it is rarely an honourable procedure. A Parliament is always sovereign, otherwise any one Parliament could impose its will on another.

Quebec’s National Assembly is sovereign in its choices and its votes. Quebec’s Parliament is, in a word, national. Now, more than ever, Quebec’s National Assembly needs the notwithstanding clause, which guarantees the prerogative and primacy of parliaments and elected members over the decisions of the courts. Courts are there only to interpret, despite the fact that we have learned, particularly over the course of Quebec history, that interpretations can, over time, and without casting stones, be nudged in a certain direction. We do not want government by judges, but government by elected members, government by the people.

As I said at the beginning, it is important to mention that the notwithstanding clause is the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I remember a question period during which we were told that it was awful, that they were not against the notwithstanding clause but against its pre-emptive use.

Of course, as it is wont to do, it is when the government runs out of arguments that it starts spouting the worst nonsense. That was a good one. If the notwithstanding clause is not to be used pre-emptively, what is the point?

The notwithstanding clause is like a COVID-19 vaccine. People get vaccinated to avoid getting COVID-19, not after they get it. The notwithstanding clause protects Quebec’s laws. We could say “the laws of Quebec and the provinces”, but let us be clear: Aside from a recent notorious case in Ontario, the notwithstanding clause is mostly used in Quebec, particularly when it comes to national identity and jurisdiction, precisely so that we do not have to hear the courts say that we cannot apply our own legislation, that it is being challenged, and that we now have to use the notwithstanding clause to fix a situation that, in the meantime, has had a deleterious effect.

Clearly, that is not how we want to or even how we should use the notwithstanding clause. Too often, harm would be done, and the same courts would have to suspend the application of the law. The notwithstanding clause is a small piece of sovereignty. “Sovereignty” is a word that frightens people. Using it inspires strong feelings and cold sweats. Sovereignty, however, is merely exclusive jurisdiction held by any party. This Parliament claims sovereignty, except in the case of Chinese spy balloons.

It is essential to recognize that, by invoking the notwithstanding clause, a jurisdiction that is a parliament, which by definition is sovereign, is claiming a small part of its sovereignty in jurisdictions which, logically speaking, should be exclusive to it.

This logical relationship between identity, the fact that Quebec is a nation begrudgingly recognized by this Parliament in a very specific context on June 16, 2021, and the fact that Quebec is the one that must resort to this clause is because Quebec is a nation, and its parliament is a national Parliament. Allow me to say that, in my opinion, this is too little.

It is too little because, of course, we want Quebeckers—in their own time, obviously, but we will encourage them—to think about sovereignty as a whole, a nation with a single national Parliament, which, as Mr. Parizeau said, would collect all taxes—we are capable of doing this and we would be having an entirely different conversation about health transfers—vote for all laws applicable in Quebec, sign all treaties and honour all existing treaties, as necessary.

Usually, people do not think about being normal. It goes without saying. We embrace normality, we seek normality and we assume normality. Quebec just needs to think about it right now, and for some time, and observe how its national identity is treated in a Parliament that should at least be a good neighbour if it cannot be a good partner.

This remains an essential reflection, but given the current context, it may no longer hold tomorrow or the next day. The game of cat and mouse, the jurisdictional stonewalling, the encroachments, the interference are anything but progress, efficiency or instruments for the greater good.

Until that necessarily deeper reflection occurs, we certainly need, in this Parliament, to solicit the good faith of colleagues and elected officials in recognizing that Quebec and the provinces have a legitimate right to use the notwithstanding clause. We are not requesting a change to the way things are done. We are asking that it be acknowledged. We simply wish to state the truth and are calling on Parliament to say that it does indeed reflect reality.

Voting against this truth would be akin to challenging the Canadian Constitution itself. This temptation was evident in the Prime Minister's comments. That raised some eyebrows, given the legacy. We are calling on the House to recognize a literal truth, if only out of respect.

In the meantime, and regardless of today’s vote, the Quebec nation and its representatives have only one true friend in this place. Only one political party raises the issues of language, identity, immigration, health care funding and the preservation of the notwithstanding clause in this House. Its members have just as much legitimacy as those of every other party. They are the members of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois is proud to stand once again, without compromise, but with a sense of responsibility and with courage, to raise, defend and promote the interests of Quebec, which we hope will accomplish even more.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about the Liberal members who have turned the Standing Committee on Official Languages into a circus. There has been less talk about the responsibility of the Prime Minister, who continued day after day to delegate these members despite their shameful missteps.

The Prime Minister sanctioned the disinformation that needlessly caused anxiety. Could he now do the right thing and reassure anglophones by confirming that neither Bill C‑13 nor Bill 96 will prevent them from receiving health care in their language?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud Quebecker who stands up in the House every day to defend French in Quebec and across Canada.

Our government was the first to recognize in a throne speech that we must protect French, and not just as one of our country's official languages. We also need to do more to protect French in Quebec.

That is exactly what we are doing with Bill C-13, which seeks to protect linguistic minorities across the country and protect French in Quebec. We are here to protect French. We are here for our beautiful French language.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Standing Committee on Official Languages turned into a full-blown circus because some Liberal members refused to acknowledge French as the common language of Quebec. The Liberal government is even jeopardizing its own Bill C-13, which is unprecedented.

Yesterday, a Franco-Ontarian member had the courage to speak out against the appalling spectacle these members were putting on and the false information they are spreading about Bill 101. However, to date, not a single Liberal member from Quebec has shown this kind of courage and stood up for French.

Will the Prime Minister condemn the Liberal disinformation?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the lieutenant is here, and he is in fine form. Bill C‑13 is the first piece of legislation to recognize that French in Quebec must be strengthened and protected. It gives francophones outside Quebec a helping hand. It gives the Commissioner of Official Languages more powers. Despite all that, the Bloc is against it because it does not want things to work, it wants to pick a fight and it does not want Parliament to work. We will succeed regardless.

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

Mr. Speaker, first we have the member for Saint‑Laurent claiming that seniors will no longer receive care if we protect the French language. Then there is the member for Notre‑Dame‑de‑Grâce—Westmount, who lobbied against Bill C‑13 recognizing French as the common language in Quebec. Naturally, the member for Mount Royal did his part too.

The West Island Liberals are banding together to attack the Charter of the French Language and promote the anglicization of Quebec.

Meanwhile, where is the Liberals' Quebec lieutenant? Why is he giving free rein to those who want to undermine efforts to protect French?