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 .

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the attempt by the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I have double-checked with our clerks as to the decisions that have been rendered, and I have been advised that the Speaker has ruled on this and quorum cannot be called, based on the motion that was put before the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, prior to entering politics, I had the privilege of spending 34 years working in the public service with Parks Canada moving around the country. I saw at that time how important the Official Languages Act was to the provision of services to the public and tourists who require French services in Canada.

I also saw how important it was to the official language minority communities that I encountered in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon and Northwest Territories. I saw that these communities had the desire to thrive and really celebrate their culture. However, they also experienced a lot of struggles in this pursuit. That is why it is my pleasure this evening to speak to the importance of Bill C-13, which is our government's proposed modernization of the Official Languages Act.

I was delighted, first of all, to see the Minister of Official Languages table a bill so quickly in the 44th Parliament. This was one of our platform promises during the last election and it was in her mandate letter. She not only delivered on this commitment, but tabled a bill that is even stronger than the bill that was tabled during the previous Parliament. I want to thank and congratulate the minister for her efforts on this.

All along, ever since the Prime Minister first promised to modernize the Official Languages Act, our goal has been to put forward a bill that reflected the linguistic realities of all Canadians. We wanted a bill that protected and promoted French for everyone in the country, including in Quebec. We wanted a bill that defended our official language minority communities from coast to coast to coast.

With Bill C-13, we have delivered on that. In fact, we have delivered a bill with teeth that responds to what we heard from the Commissioner of Official Languages, from parliamentarians here and in the other place and from stakeholders all across the country. Let me illustrate this point by highlighting a very specific example: the powers granted to the Commissioner of Official Languages and the compliance of federal institutions covered by the official languages regime.

In recent years, Canadians have lodged an increasing number of complaints with the commissioner. Over the past decade, that number has gone from a few hundred complaints every year to more than a thousand complaints annually. Last year, the Commissioner of Official Languages received a record number of complaints. While this reflects a more widespread understanding among Canadians of linguistic rights, it also shows that Canadians expect us to do more. They expect our institutions to do better when it comes to respecting official language obligations.

These complaints go to the Commissioner of Official Languages because he has the power to investigate these complaints and publish his findings. However, we heard from the commissioner himself that this was not enough. The commissioner wanted more powers in order to fulfill his mandate and to make sure that the official language rights of Canadians were being respected. As an officer of Parliament, the commissioner felt that he needed to have the same powers as other officers of Parliament, particularly the Information Commissioner. We heard this request, and with Bill C-13 we acted.

From day one after our bill receives royal assent, the commissioner will have a wider range of powers that will allow him to do his job and make sure federal institutions live up to their obligations under the Official Languages Act. We are giving the commissioner a continuum of enhanced powers, widening the scope of what he will be allowed to do.

To begin with, the commissioner will have the power to establish compliance agreements with federal institutions. These agreements would be entered into between the commissioner and federal institutions and would detail the specific terms with which the federal institutions would have to comply in order to fix their non-compliance. The commissioner would then be able to oversee the implementation of the agreement to ensure federal institutions are fully complying with the terms.

If non-compliance persists, the commissioner would have the power to issue an order requiring the federal institution to change its course immediately. If this order did not yield the expected results, citizens and the commissioner would be allowed to elevate the matter. The bill also specifies the commissioner would be allowed to use other methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation, to try to diffuse a situation.

In some situations, for companies that deal with the travelling public, such as Air Canada, Via Rail, Marine Atlantic and airport authorities, the commissioner would even have the power to impose administrative monetary penalties. The commissioner would be able to impose penalties for individual complaints, giving him more power to ensure that these companies, which are routinely the subjects of the most complaints, live up to their obligations. While such penalties would only be used as part of a continuum of powers, in cases where companies refuse to comply with the Official Languages Act, they represent a major win for the Canadian travelling public in an industry where non-compliance issues have been known for a long time.

Under this bill, the commissioner would be given the power to publish the findings and recommendations of his investigations. This would strengthen institutional compliance by establishing public precedence on a large body of linguistic issues.

To be sure, the commissioner's day-to-day functions would remain largely unchanged. The commissioner's office would still be responsible for handling complaints from citizens and federal public servants who have difficulty working in the public service, being served or communicating with federal institutions in the official language of their choice.

The commissioner would also be allowed to continue to produce reports, investigate on his own initiative and educate federal institutions by sharing his recommendations and corrective measures. Again, these changes come at the request of the Official Languages Commissioner. We heard these changes were necessary to ensure Canadians could speak in either official language when dealing with federal institutions, as well as businesses in federal jurisdictions, and our government has acted.

These changes will ensure that Canadians see their linguistic realities reflected in their institutions, and they ensure that in cases where Canadians are not able to get the services they need in the official language of their choice, they would be able to file a complaint with the Official Languages Commissioner, who would be able to respond with enhanced powers.

I recently met with La Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique. This organization believes we can do more, as well. Since the enactment of the Official Languages Act, it has enhanced the use of French and English in Canada, but it has consistently lacked precision, as well as the means to ensure its full implementation. Living daily life in French remains difficult in various places throughout the country, including in my province of British Columbia. La Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique has advocated for various enhancements, including a greater overarching authority over federal institutions that are responsible for implementing different parts of the act. There also needs to be greater clarity on what federal institutions need to do concretely to promote French and English, and support official language minority communities. Our legislation would also modernize the Official Languages Act.

Bill C-13 represents a major improvement over our previous legislation, which was already a very ambitious modernization of Canada's official languages regime. We are doing this because we understand that if we want an Official Languages Act that responds to the needs of Canadians, we need a bill that is bold and that speaks to the realities of minority official language communities in Canada, whether they are francophone or anglophone.

That is why I am so proud to stand and speak in support of Bill C-13, which is the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about non-compliance in the travel industry, and he talked about the appropriate responses.

Now, I wonder if the member could speak to the maximum fine that could be levied, and whether he thinks that maximum fine is sufficient, given the size and scale of the companies we are often speaking about in the case of that sector.

Could he also speak to the failures of his government to meet current targets around francophone immigration, and the fact that this bill asks the minister to put in place a policy? Frankly, the government is failing to meet its existing targets, so passing legislation telling it to have a plan and targets, when it is not meeting its existing targets, seems to really miss the need for action that is already lacking.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the member's first point about fines, the enhanced authorities that we are talking about for the Official Languages Commissioner are needed. They are needed to go after companies, as we said, that often find themselves in non-compliance. Fines are one tool, but I spoke of some of the other instruments that would be available, as far as investigating complaints and enforcing corrective measures for that.

I would also say that our government has taken official language rights forward through this legislation. We are committed to increasing immigration, and to helping maintain and support a flourishing official language community both in Quebec for English minority communities, and throughout the rest of the country for francophones.

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

Madam Speaker, for 52 years, all federal subsidies under the Official Languages Act have gone almost exclusively toward strengthening the anglophone community in Quebec. The reason given was that this community is a minority, even though it is part of the English Canadian majority.

In the throne speech and in the preamble of Bill C‑13, the government appears to recognize that francophones in Quebec are part of the francophone minority in Canada and in North America. Why not amend these positive measures to support the francophone community, to support French Quebec?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will speak as a British Columbian member of Parliament. I know how important the federal government's support is to the francophone community within British Columbia. I would like to see these measures continue to support the minority official language communities across the country.

I know we have heard throughout the debate this evening that Quebec is this island of French within a monolithic anglophone culture surrounding it in the rest of Canada and the United States. I think any supports we can have, as our government has done with the francophone population in Quebec, help to strengthen the culture, the survivability and hopefully the thriving of French language and culture within our country.

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

Madam Speaker, through the course of the past six months, I have had the privilege and the opportunity to meet with many stakeholders who work in the field of official languages. They provided us with some feedback, so we made some improvements with Bill C-13.

Would the member be able to speak about the difference that Bill C-13 would make, in the communities that he represents, for the official minority communities within British Columbia?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I worked on the Official Languages Act in my first term in Parliament, in the 42nd Parliament. I know there were a lot of consultations happening. The federation of British Columbia francophones was very involved in those inputs. I know there were some concerns raised. Then, with the next iteration in the last Parliament, it had some concerns, but those, in many ways, have been addressed in this one.

I would like to see this get to committee, to hear the committee's input and perhaps hear from organizations such as the francophone federation in British Columbia. This is excellent legislation to move forward the Official Languages Act in 2022.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages. I am happy to be speaking in the House at 10 p.m., even though this is usually when I go to bed.

We are here to talk about Bill C‑13, bilingualism and Canada's two official languages.

First of all, I want to provide an overview of the situation. I believe that all members of the House recognize that French is in decline and, in some ways, threatened. This is the case in Quebec and in minority communities across Canada.

Quebec's National Assembly has demonstrated, almost mathematically, that the use of French has been declining for more than a decade. It is fully documented as well. The Quebec government has tabled legislation that is being debated in the National Assembly. Let the debate take place where it belongs, in the National Assembly, in Quebec.

Here, we are debating Bill C-13, which addresses the issue of bilingualism and the decline of French in this country. I will have the opportunity to come back to this in more detail, but, in our opinion, this is a minor reform, when a serious reform was needed. It proposes minor changes when what we need are big ones.

As it stands, we do not believe that the bill will stop the decline of French. This is essentially because the bill lacks teeth. We will describe it later, but what we need are concrete enforcement measures. The fines must be significant and not symbolic. This bill does not contain the measures needed. It also ignores the demands made by nearly all French-language advocacy groups.

The Treasury Board is where the final decision has to be made and where the action will have to be taken. That is where everything happens. I say this with all due respect to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Official Languages. The Treasury Board needs the tools to enforce bilingualism and the French language in certain areas where it is in decline. Unfortunately, the bill does not go quite that far.

How has it gotten to this point?

I remind members that it was back in the 1960s that the debate started over whether Canada should be a bilingual country and whether, its two languages, French and English, should have equal status in its institutions.

There was the creation of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, or the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. That commission was established in the 1960s, under the leadership of the prime minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, as the member for Hull—Aylmer mentioned.

In 1969, the prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, passed in the House of Commons the first legislation on both official languages, which put French and English on exactly the same footing, the same level, with the same responsibilities and the same privileges.

Across Canada, in the federal government, in the public service and elsewhere in its territories, this meant having the same services from coast to coast to coast in both official languages. Of course at first, there was some gnashing of teeth, which is entirely predictable and legitimate, for those who grew up in a country where official bilingualism did not exist. When we have to learn a second language overnight, that can seem like a huge challenge.

Now, almost 53 years later, anyone pursuing a career in the federal public service can expect to have to speak both official languages at some point. Anyone with their sights set on a senior position needs to expect that, and that is as it should be.

The first Official Languages Act was passed in 1969. The Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government gave it a major refresh and upgrade in 1988. After that, nothing was done right away to completely overhaul bilingualism. As everyone knows, the Harper government took steps to really protect French in some areas where it is not the majority language.

Then came the 2015 election, and members will recall that the current governing party promised, with hand over heart, to review the Official Languages Act.

From 2015 to 2019, no progress was made in this regard. There was an election and then, in 2021, lo and behold, the government began to take action. However, since the Prime Minister decided to call a second election in the midst of a pandemic, against all scientific advice, the government's initiative did not go any further.

That is why we have Bill C-13 before us today, when my government friends promised such a bill in 2015. It took them six years.

We have concerns about this bill. We believe that, when the government talks about official languages, there is all too often a lot of lip service. No one can be against apple pie, as the saying goes, and we all want to protect minority languages and French, but is the government really taking the strong, serious, meaningful and appropriate measures needed to fully achieve that? Unfortunately, that is where the problem lies.

That is why, as I mentioned earlier, we would have liked the Treasury Board to have the final say on the application of the Official Languages Act, to show that there is muscle and that it is serious and rigorous. When it comes to government services to the public, it is the Treasury Board that has the greatest authority, since it is the body within the federal administration that says yes or no to tax expenditures.

I am not going to pass judgment on how enthusiastically successive Treasury Board presidents since 2015 have accepted endless spending. The authority to approve or refuse expenditures lies with the President of the Treasury Board. Several groups had asked for the Treasury Board to be given the responsibility in this instance, but unfortunately that did not happen.

The government also wants to make sure there is successful and acceptable francophone immigration in all communities from coast to coast to coast, but, once again, there is no clear and specific objective.

There is also no power to issue orders or deterrent fines to businesses that fail to respect official languages. Earlier, someone mentioned the example of a $25,000 fine for a national organization whose president is not bilingual. That amount is a drop in the bucket for an organization of that size.

The bill also gives federally regulated organizations in Quebec the option of being subject to either Bill 101 or the federal legislation, but that is no way to handle this file. A person cannot be half pregnant. We are either for Bill 101 or against it. In this case, we are letting businesses choose, but that is not the way it should be.

That is why many minority rights advocacy groups have come forward to say that Bill C‑13 might be well intentioned, with laudable objectives, but, basically, it fails to meet the needs of minorities.

Liane Roy, president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, put it so well when she said that the biggest disappointment is that there needs to be someone in charge who can look at the other departments and give orders and be proactive instead of reactive all the time. Responsibility for the new act is still split between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, which may delegate powers to other departments.

As the FCFA said on March 2, the bilingualism policy lacks a clear objective. Will it be about maintaining or increasing our demographic weight? This does not accomplish what the government says it wants to do in immigration, if we refer to the February 2021 document from the former official languages minister.

As a final point, the Economic Development Council for Manitoba Bilingual Communities said on March 1 that in Manitoba's experience, what is needed is an approach to francophone immigration that goes beyond federal targets and objectives, that involves all those working on the ground, even municipal authorities, similar to what was done with the welcoming communities project.

From the Conservatives' perspective, Bill C‑13 does not go far enough and should go back to the drawing board.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I very much like, for his speech this evening.

Over the past few months, I had the privilege of meeting many stakeholders who told me what they wanted to see in the new version of Bill C-13.

One suggestion I heard many times was to create a central agency. I believe my colleague mentioned exactly that tonight. I do have to say, however, that I am a bit lost, because I keep hearing the Conservatives talk about that. However, we did actually formalize the role of the Treasury Board as a central agency. Going forward, it will be in charge of implementing the act, and it will also have a coordination and evaluation role. Moreover, in the fall economic statement, we gave the Treasury Board more resources to make sure it has everything it needs.

I wonder if my colleague knows about these changes, which are exactly what stakeholders asked for. That change was made in the new version of the bill.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to echo my colleague's comments. I really enjoy the minister's company. I knew her in another life. She was a parliamentary secretary to the finance minister when I was the finance critic, as members will recall.

If the minister thinks that we, the Conservatives, are harsh, I would simply like her to be aware of the fact that someone who she certainly knows very well, Liane Roy, the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, commented on the subject the minister just brought up and expressed her great disappointment. She said, and I quote:

There needs to be someone in charge who can look at the other departments and give orders and be proactive instead of reactive all the time....That is the difference between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, which can delegate powers to other departments.

In short, we are not the only ones who are being a bit tough on the minister's bill. It is the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, which she is very familiar with.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that the bill does not go far enough. I agree.

I think that it needs to undergo a major reform, particularly based on the requests of the Government of Quebec, which asked that Quebec be given sole authority over linguistic development and management within its borders. I know that my colleague agrees that Bill 101 should apply to federally regulated businesses. There are also positive measures that must be taken with Quebec's consent. Right now, 100% of the positive measures in Quebec seek to strengthen the anglophone community.

I want to know what he thinks about that.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is well aware that, in our last two campaign platforms, Conservatives said that Bill 101 could apply to businesses in Quebec. Over three-quarters of a million Quebeckers voted for us and that approach.

I also want to make it clear that we Conservatives seize every opportunity to demonstrate our tremendous respect for jurisdiction. One thing federal Conservatives will not do is tell the provinces how to do certain things. That is reciprocal, actually.

To us, protecting the French language is essentially in Quebec's bailiwick. Quebec started working on it in the 1960s with Bill 63, which was not exactly the greatest invention of the century. In 1974, there was Bill 22, which had more teeth but did more harm than good, some say. Then Bill 101 was passed in 1977, and the debate on Bill 96 is under way as we speak.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I just want to come back to the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages to issue orders. In the bill, those powers apply only to parts IV and V of the act, but part VII is the part that promotes the equality of official languages and supports the development of official language minority communities.

Does my colleague not think the commissioner should also have the power to issue orders for part VII of the act?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, from our perspective, in order to be taken seriously, one must grant the necessary powers.

As far as we are concerned, what matters most is Treasury Board authority, but yes, the Commissioner of Official Languages must have some real muscle. That said, should we be surprised to see this government introduce a bill that is weak with respect to certain demands?

After all, this is the Prime Minister who, when looking to appoint someone to the position of governor general, the highest position in the land, when he had 38 million Canadians to choose from, selected someone who does not speak French.