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 .

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to begin by making a comment in response to all the questions I've heard. I find it rather worrisome that the government representative avoided asking for details about the amendments we were discussing today. Instead of attacking the opposition parties, I believe it would have been more useful to try and understand how the interests of francophone communities could be supported and how Bill C‑13 could be improved.

I have another question about the language provisions. The minister had indicated that these provisions could be considered for inclusion in agreements with the provinces by viewing the matter through a language lens, a term borrowed from the idea of a gender lens, to consider the impact of decisions on groups seeking equity. The rationale for this suggestion came from the introduction of positive measures to promote the rights of francophones.

Do you feel that a commitment to use this kind of lens is enough to protect the rights of the communities and access to services in French?

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

Okay. I'll speak quickly.

Getting back to the six proposals, you've been putting forward persistently for quite a while, it's noteworthy that the government has not included them in Bill C‑13.

Why do you think the government will eventually agree to them?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I'm sorry, Ms. Roy, but we get to ask the questions, and it's up to you to answer them. Moreover, questions should be directed through the Chair.

We are here to undertake a study because we believe that it's important. We want all the communities and all the interested parties to tell us what they think so that we can make progress.

If you don't have an answer to that question, I'll ask the next one.

What scenario would you have preferred for the adoption of Bill C‑13?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I am very happy to hear that.

You've repeated it more than once, but you need to say it even more often here at the committee. For you, it's important for the work to be done as quickly as possible. That's exactly what we think. And yet, the opposition thinks that we want to get it over with as quickly as possible because our interests differ from theirs.

My next question, Ms. Roy, is the following. Even though the opposition parties are saying that they want to modernize the Official Languages Act, on several occasions they blocked attempts to move the study of Bill C‑13 forward more quickly. On the other hand, the Senate has adopted a motion to begin a pre-study of Bill C‑13.

Do you think that a pre-study of Bill C‑13 would have been useful in allowing more representation for groups like the FCFA?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to clear something up: we never said that we wanted to get it done in 15 hours. My dear colleague, we consistently asked you how many hours you would be needing, and we never got an answer. I would therefore appreciate it if you could refrain from putting words in our mouth. That's unacceptable, as you know very well.

Ms. Roy, my first question is for you.

In the debates on Bill C‑13, the opposition parties directly quoted the FCFA more than a dozen times, and referred indirectly to your suggested amendments on several occasions.

Are the obstructive tactics and dilatory measures being used by the Conservative Party and the NDP in keeping with what you want to see in the bill?

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

Let me re‑state my question. Should Bill C‑13 extend the right to a legal remedy to each part of the act?

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

All right.

Should Bill C‑13 extend the right to take legal action to all parts of the Official Languages Act?

[Liane Roy]

Yes, they should be clarified. Our proposal on that is that the wording of Bill C‑11 should be added to Bill C‑13, as I said in my opening remarks about the Broadcasting Act. We did that because all the political parties had already approved it.

As you know, we want to move forward on this quickly, and it had already been agreed to by all the parties. That's why we are proposing that what Bill C‑11 says about everything pertaining to consultations should be reproduced in Bill C‑13.

[Alain Dupuis]

I'd like to correct an assumption here. We never said there were 25 amendments either. A few years ago, we drafted a model bill in which we conducted a complete analysis of the Official Languages Act. Many of these requests were included in either Bill C‑32 or Bill C‑13, and now the six remaining amendments represent what's still to be done to produce the best possible bill for francophone and Acadian communities.

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

The success of this reform, of Bill C‑13, will doubtless require a great deal of political will.

Did you examine the mandate letters that the Privy Council or the Prime Minister's Office sent to the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Official Languages for the new parliament? Is it possible they persuaded you to focus on certain clauses?

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

You understand that the current version of Bill C‑13 will require a lot of improvements in order to meet your targets. However, it's even further from meeting Quebec's targets and demands that French be the common language and the language of integration for newcomers.

Have you sensed that in the Quebec government's demands?

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

Pardon me for interrupting. Whom did you consult so you could cut 25 amendments down to 6?

To put the question more clearly, did you consult my colleague Mr. Samson or my colleague the former Minister of Francophone Affairs for Ontario, for example?

Whom have you consulted in the past few months, since Bill C‑32 became Bill C‑13?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I promise I won't introduce any motions today.

I just want to say I understand my NDP colleague's comments. However, if I had been in her position at the last meeting, I would've presented the amendments she wanted to make in her motion. However, she didn't do that.

Once again today, I can say I've received no counteroffers on the length of the committee's study on Bill C‑13. This is important for me because it's a form of obstruction of Parliament to introduce 100 amendments or summon a large number of witnesses without the committee having an opportunity to consider the crux of the matter. I'm still waiting for a counteroffer from the opposition parties respecting the time we'll take to study this bill. This is important, and stakeholders want it.

Now getting down to brass tacks.

Ms. Roy, you established the central agency principle. I remember meeting your predecessors, when we discussed the Dion plan and the Privy Council Office.

Why should the Treasury Board be the central agency responsible for implementing the Official Languages Act rather than the Privy Council Office?

[Alain Dupuis]

On page 20, we propose to expand the commissioner's order-making power by granting him a new power under Bill C‑13. We want to extend that power beyond part IV of the act, which concerns services, and part V, which concerns rights respecting language of work, among other things.

We would also like this order-making power to be expanded to part VII to enable him to determine whether a federal institution has failed to take necessary positive measures or to consult the communities, or whether a department has failed to consider the negative impacts of a decision on official language minority communities. The commissioner could then order that institution to redo the work, conduct further consultations and reconsider positive measures.

This would have a major impact on francophone communities. With this power, certain court cases could be avoided. Some have gone as far as the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Alain Dupuis]

On page 12 of the brief we distributed to you, we propose much clearer wording for the immigration policy.

Under Bill C‑13, the government would commit to "maintaining or increasing the demographic weight" of francophones. Instead, we think that the purpose of the policy should be to restore and increase their demographic weight. Furthermore, the francophone immigration policy should not be "one of the factors that contribute" to achieving that target; rather it's the policy that establishes the objective of re‑establishing the demographic weight of francophones. The word re‑establish has a restorative connotation. The bill should, first, take into account the loss of demographic weight that our communities have experienced in the past 20 years and, second, increase that weight. This means that we will need much higher targets. We currently have a target of 4.4% of francophone immigration outside Quebec, whereas we've never reached more than 2%. That means we must quickly increase—