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 .

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

So we have to address infrastructure and early childhood.

Bill C‑13 is helpful because it deals with preschool, in particular, and that will be an improvement.

You spoke earlier about the 2017 strategic agreement.

Have you asked for a new agreement? The reason I ask this question is that the agreement has expired. It was for a term of only five years.

If so, can you tell us what important details you have incorporated into the agreement?

Official Languages

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, entitled “Establishing Language Requirements for Governor in Council Appointments”.

This study was conducted in response to a recommendation from the Commissioner of Official Languages. In his 2021-22 report, he looked into language obligations in the staffing process for senior management positions in the federal public service and Governor in Council appointments. Despite the passage of Bill C‑13 and the modernization of the Official Languages Act, it seems that a significant number of positions filled by Governor in Council appointments still do not have a language requirement.

This report and these recommendations will be of interest to the reader wishing to address these gaps. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Could mentioning the education continuum, i.e., from preschool to post-secondary, in Bill C‑13 broaden the scope of section 23 of the charter?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I will say that, as the new Minister of Official Languages, I am eager to work with my Quebec counterpart. Protecting and promoting our two official languages, including French, is a top priority for our government. That is why we implemented Bill C‑13. We have also made historic investments in our action plan to the tune of $4.1 billion over five years. Our priority will always be official languages, and I repeat that I am eager to work with my counterparts.

[Carsten Quell]

I had the privilege of attending meetings spent on the study of Bill C‑13, and I generally recall the remarks made by the colleague Mrs. Vignola just mentioned.

Privilege

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

Madam Speaker, today, October 29, will likely not be the only opportunity I have to speak in the House before October 31, which is Halloween, but before I begin my speech, I want to wish all the children in Canada, particularly those in Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier, a very happy Halloween. The weather will be nice. I urge them to be careful. On Halloween, there are sometimes witches and people who scare us. I want them to be careful and vigilant. On November 1, it will all be over.

The work of the House has been paralyzed for over a month. I am rising today to add my voice to those of my other Conservative Party colleagues because the government is still refusing to produce documents related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC.

Before I continue, I have here the Speaker's ruling of September 26. I will not read the whole thing, but here is an excerpt. He said the following, and I quote:

Colleagues, I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 16 by the House leader of the official opposition, concerning the alleged failure to produce documents pertaining to Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

I will skip two pages and read a short paragraph.

As it stands, the motion was adopted. The House has clearly ordered the production of certain documents, and that order has clearly not been fully complied with. The Chair cannot come to any other conclusion but to find that a prima facie question of privilege has been established. However, before inviting the House leader of the official opposition to proceed with the moving of a motion, I would like to make a few comments on the type of motion the Chair would consider to be appropriate in the circumstances.

We know the outcome. The Speaker of the House ruled in favour the question of privilege. That is why we have been discussing this subject for nearly a month.

It was clear. The order requiring the government to produce a series of unredacted documents related to this organization was passed by a majority of MPs on June 10. We owe it to ourselves to be transparent. Occasionally, as the official opposition, we are criticized for using the tools at our disposal. This one is written in the books, and the invaluable table officers reference the House of Commons procedures every day to ensure that we comply with those procedures.

For several years, SDTC has been embroiled in a Liberal scandal known as the “green slush fund”. These documents were supposed to be handed over to the RCMP, but the government failed to comply with the order of the House and still refuses to do so. What got us to this point was the Auditor General's conclusion that SDTC officials broke conflict of interest laws 186 times and funnelled $400 million of taxpayers' money to their own companies. That is $400 million of Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars ending up in the pockets of Liberal government cronies.

Let us break down how that $400 million was wasted. The Auditor General is not a member of the official opposition, nor is she a member of the second or third opposition party. She is not an independent MP or some ordinary person. The Auditor General is the Auditor General.

Ten ineligible projects were awarded $58 million. Those projects did not meet the eligibility criteria. None of them could demonstrate an environmental benefit or the development of green technology despite that being one of the eligibility criteria. Those projects got money anyway. In 186 cases, $334 million was allocated to projects that put board members in a conflict of interest. I repeat: in 186 cases, the projects were linked to board members. Where I come from, and in the Conservative Party, we call that a conflict of interest. Another $58 million was awarded to projects that did not comply with the terms and conditions of the contribution agreement.

That is how the $400 million was spent. Keep in mind that those are the Auditor General's numbers.

This is my third term of office and I could write volumes on the number of scandals, the mismanagement, and the lack of management by this government, which has been in power since I arrived in the House of Commons. The government has been in power for nine years. If we listen to Canadians, people are fed up, exhausted, and impoverished. They want an election. However, the obstruction continues with the help of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois seems to have changed its mind today. Time will tell, but Bloc members have little to show for their ultimatum, which ends today. During his presentation, I asked the Bloc Québécois leader what would happen on the morning of October 30. We will return to that later.

This government is asking us to stop doing our work to help it move forward. I will give an example. At the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we moved a motion to understand the process that led to the appointment of the current Governor General, who was chosen by this government that claims to be a defender of the French language and to have concern for both official languages here in Canada. However, it appointed a Governor General who does not speak French, one of the two official languages of our beautiful country, Canada.

I just wanted to share that information. Nearly 80% of Canadians care about bilingualism, but when we talk about bilingualism, we are talking about French and English. It is unique to our country. We need to protect this bilingualism. It is a strength that attracts people who have the chance to be able to use both languages.

We wanted to understand how this was done because it is a mystery and we moved a motion in committee.

It was a bunch of insiders who decided among themselves to appoint a governor. In SDTC's case, a bunch of insiders decided to pad the pockets of Liberal cronies. We have seen this before.

The Liberals were in committee, supported by the NDP. They said there was not enough time to discuss this or it was not the right time to discuss it. When will it be time to discuss it? The government keeps putting this off, and now it is criticizing us for doing our job. It is accusing us of acting in bad faith. True, if we did not do that, we would not be doing our job. This is another example of this government's lack of judgment and lack of respect. I find that troubling.

That is not to impugn Ms. Simon's competence or skills. Anyone here in the House chosen to be Governor General would have agreed to learn French. It is perfectly understandable. I can vouch that learning a second language is no easy feat. I can attest to that. I try, but I make no claim to be bilingual. Ms. Simon is a person of good faith and a good Canadian, and she is entitled to respect.

She is not the problem. The problem is the appointment process. This government says that it will not delve deeply into the matter or disclose the procedures it followed for all Canadians to see. I will leave it to Canadians to be the judge.

As a staunch defender of the French fact, I am pleased to contribute to the official languages file and to have been a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, whose work included the modernization of the legislation that received royal assent in June 2023. Reaching the point of royal assent, however, was quite an undertaking.

Bill C-13 is another example of this government's botched work. I will give two examples. The act that received royal assent in June 2023 contains two orders in council. The first gives the Commissioner of Official Languages the tools to impose monetary penalties, in other words, fines. It is October 29, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, just before Halloween 2024, which means it has been over a year since it received royal assent. However, no one on the other side of the House, from the government side, can tell me when the order will be tabled. Since the Liberals claim to care about both official languages and the French fact, that is not very impressive.

Part 2 of the act will also come into force as soon as an order is tabled and approved by cabinet. This order establishes the implementation of part 2 of the Official Languages Act on the right to work in the language of one's choice. Once again, it has been radio silence. There is no timeline for when the order will be tabled.

I will add that there are regulations that need to be written in the application of the law. Does anyone know how long it is going to take to write the regulations? It will take a third of the time of the revision, or three and a half years. Is it normal, where there is the will and the intent to protect both official languages, to have brought in legislation and say that it is going to take three and a half years to write the regulations? That is the action of people who do not have the will and the intent.

My question is simple. When will the government ensure that French is respected here in Canada, which, until further notice, is a bilingual country that uses French and English?

Let us not forget that. Also at the Standing Committee on Official Languages in May and June, the Liberals doggedly protected one of their own and blocked the committee's work for more than seven meetings. They did this to protect one of their friends, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who said witnesses from Quebec were full of something I will not mention here. There is a disconnect within the party. The Liberals are the ones filibustering. The Liberals are the ones preventing us from getting things done. In my opinion, they like it that way because they do not know what to do.

If they really wanted to get down to business and run our country, they would simply produce the documents. It would take a day, maybe two, at most, and then we could move on, but no, they want to blame us for what is happening.

As I said, according to procedure, there is a process. There are rules. This was confirmed by the Speaker of the House. What I am saying is that it would be so simple to produce the documents. The Liberals' argument as to why they are not doing so is that the RCMP wants the documents, does not want the documents, wants some of the documents or wants the documents this way or that way. That is not important. The important thing is that the House ordered this government to provide unredacted documents. The RCMP will do what it wants with them afterwards. All we want is for the government to abide by the Speaker's order.

Several years ago, we had the Gomery commission. I am sure members will remember that. It was the 2004 Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities that was tasked with getting to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal. It smacked of corruption, and the same thing seems to be happening here in the House of Commons in 2024. Once again, this government is trying to protect itself. What is it trying to protect itself from? If the Liberals are so honest and transparent, all they have to do is produce the documents. It is not complicated.

The list of things that make us doubt their honesty is long. As I mentioned, I have been an MP since 2015. One of my colleagues, Frank Baylis, was elected in 2015. We went through the pandemic and, in 2019, Mr. Baylis chose not to run again. As luck would have it, he became an expert on respirators. He quickly gained access to government contracts to sell respirators. These are public funds. What is there to hide? This is a great opportunity for Liberal friends.

Of course, a series of events over the past nine years come to mind. I will list them briefly. There was the Aga Khan's island trip, for which the Prime Minister was found guilty. There was the abuse of protocol activities in India. There were the Jamaica vacations, ArriveCAN, SNC-Lavalin, McKinsey, partisan judicial appointments, and so on.

While Liberal friends are getting richer, the cost of living has skyrocketed. Canadians do not need to be poorer. They have a right to know. I think it would be a significant gesture on the part of the Liberals, after the months that have gone by and been wasted, to proceed with the tabling of these documents and respect the hard-working Canadians who are striving for a better quality of life in Canada. It is all part of the process.

Why are politicians so mistrusted? The answer is simple. It is because the Liberal government's elected officials refuse to co-operate and be transparent.

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

You said earlier that it was grants from Canadian Heritage that were directed more to anglophone students. That is quite surprising.

In the last reform, introduced by Bill C‑13, much was said about increasing the funding for immersion schools. However, nothing was said about increasing the funding for schools managed by and for francophones. In the meantime, assimilation is continuing.

Would it not be wiser to really focus on schools managed by and for francophones, in view of the rising assimilation rate?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know that every second counts. This is very important in minority communities.

I would first like to say hello to my colleagues.

Mr. Giroux, I am very glad to see you again.

Ms. Maisonneuve, it has been a long time since we spoke.

Mrs. Bourque, you are a former teammate at the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial. I am delighted to hear what you have to say.

Because my time is limited, my questions will be to the point. I would like your answers to be, as well. I am going to limit my background remarks.

Mr. Giroux, I am going to start with you.

Very quickly, congratulations on the 100% job guarantee offered by your college. That is very impressive.

Regarding the scholarships awarded to anglophones and not francophones, that decision was made by the province. You should be having discussions with the province about that. In Nova Scotia, in the past, Acadians were not given priority. Since they accounted for only 5% of the population, they were drowned out by all the rest when it came to getting financial aid. They were not all able to make it to the surface, so when they managed to get aid it was a bit of a stroke of luck. These things need to get resolved quickly.

Regarding early childhood education, I know that you are aware that Bill C‑13 puts some flesh on the bones. Pre-school and post-secondary education now get mentioned as part of the education continuum. This will expand the issue of official languages in education and increase demand in your communities.

Regarding the measures to limit immigration, there is going to have to be a conversation with the federal Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. There is a structure in place for education and medicine, but early childhood education may need to be added.

Can you comment a bit in 30 seconds, please?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I am pleased to see you again, Mr. Demers, Mr. Lévesque and Mr. Foucher.

Mr. Foucher, you raised two important issues. First, you mentioned the education continuum. I believe it is essential. In Nova Scotia, we've seen how important access to education in French from the age of four is.

That said, I want to dig a little deeper. I'm sure you know that the Official Languages Act, which was modernized under Bill C-13, refers a few times to early childhood and post-secondary education, specifically in subsections 41(3), 41(6) and 93.1(1.2). With the addition of these provisions to the Official Languages Act, has Bill C-13 enhanced section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from a legal standpoint?

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

Okay.

In your testimony, you briefly talked about infrastructure. I would like to come back to what Mr. Samson said earlier about Bill C‑13, which was passed.

There is indeed a provision in the bill, or in the act, that allows school boards to apply for access to land. I would simply like to underline that the act does not say that the federal government will necessarily invest in those lands. I know my colleague Mr. Samson well, and he is very enthusiastic. It is true that the new legislation opens doors everywhere, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the federal government, in addition to giving access to the land, will fund it. I just wanted to highlight that.

Is my time up, Mr. Chair? I guess so.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Chair, I've expressed my opinion about this in the media. I believe the Governor General should be able to speak both of the country's official languages. That has always been, is and always will be my opinion. In addition, I've stated publicly, and I stand by this, that I was disappointed that the Governor General, who, as the motion points out, made it clear she would make every possible effort to learn French, did not achieve the level of proficiency she hoped to achieve. She herself has recognized this. I'm just echoing what she said. I'm sure you can understand my position.

That said, I will vote against the motion because it's just a political tactic designed to waste the committee's precious time. We all know this Parliament will end by October 20, 2025, at the latest. We have an extremely important study to do between now and then. It's historic. As I clearly explained this morning—or at least it was clear in my head—as proud as I am of section 23 of the Charter, I have to recognize that it was a major achievement for the government of the day, the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I also want to recognize the incredible work done by the minister responsible for this file, Jean Chrétien, who was the key player in the section 23 negotiations on education. He did an amazing job of negotiating to convince the provinces and territories to agree to it. That was huge.

I can hear some of my colleagues saying I'm obstructing the process, but that's not true at all. I'm just explaining why I'm going to vote against the motion. As soon as I'm done, we can vote. I know my Liberal colleague would like to talk about it, but I'm fine with it.

I just want to explain and recognize that section 23 and now Bill C‑13 are amazing tools to make positive change for Canada's francophonie. However, I don't want to waste one second of the essential work we need to do here and in the House, and this motion is a tactic to get in the way of that work.

For those two reasons, I will be voting against the motion put forward by my colleague, of whom I'm very fond.

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

The problem is not the individual, but rather the process and the missteps the government has made since it came to power. I have here a list of missteps that demonstrate the government's incompetence when it comes to protecting French, which is one of the two official languages.

First, the Centre d'expertise en immigration francophone was established in Dieppe, New Brunswick a few years ago, but we still have no information on its expenditures and what it's done so far.

Second, I could talk about the hit CBC podcast that was translated into French in Paris.

Third, certain bilingual positions are held by unilingual anglophones in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Fourth, I could talk about the ArriveCAN app, which does not respect both official languages.

Fifth, there is the issue of unilingual English labelling during the pandemic.

Sixth, there are the appointments of the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada. She speaks only English and she has not committed to learning French, which is unacceptable.

Seventh, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the comments of our colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who made vulgar remarks about the witnesses.

Eighth, I could talk about Ms. Gainey. When she entered the House of Commons, the Prime Minister introduced her in English only.

As I said earlier, Bill C‑35 makes no mention of official languages in the day care process. It was the Conservative Party of Canada that tabled amendments.

Ninth, I could talk about the commissions of inquiry chaired by Justice Rouleau and Justice Hogue. The Commissioner of Official Languages confirmed that it was unacceptable that the documents were not translated.

Tenth, the government order and regulations for modernizing the Official Languages Act, Bill C‑13. Nine orders remain. Royal assent was received in June 2023. This shows that the government has neither the will nor the intent.

Eleventh, no one is accountable for the Action Plan for Official Languages.

This list is not exhaustive, but I wanted to show that the government made a mistake when it appointed the Governor General.

Mr. Chair, I don't know if I can do it now, but I'd like to move an amendment.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleagues for being here today.

I have so many questions that I don't know where to start. My team told me not to provide too much background information. However, I want to make one point before I ask my questions.

Bill C‑13 supported the recognition of early childhood and post‑secondary education in the minority language. This is a first in Canadian history. There had never been any references to it before. When this issue was raised, the governments said that section 23 of the charter didn't include early childhood and post‑secondary education at all. For the first time in Canadian history, we can find these references. I think that the bill refers to post‑secondary education four times. Early childhood education comes up in part 1 of the bill. It's in proposed subsections 41(3), 41(6) and 93.1(1.2) of the Official Languages Act, which talk about indicators and measures.

For the first time, you have power in your tool box. That's remarkable. It's all down to your hard work.

In reality, the approach in Canada for the past 50 years was a recipe for failure. It was impossible to succeed. However, we didn't talk about it because we lacked the power. Today, we have that power and we must talk about it. The current and future governments must give you substantial support.

That said, I'll now ask some quick questions.

My first question is quite specific. Does the addition of day care spots for $10 help parents of francophone children in minority communities in Canada?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you for your question.

I'd like to start by saying that this is not the only amount we're going to allocate to the two official languages.

We need to continue supporting both official languages. All institutions also need to have an obligation to comply with the rules. That's why this week I announced the part VII Official Languages Accountability and Reporting Framework contained in Bill C‑13. Under this framework, we have an obligation to support official languages in public services.

The accountability and reporting framework makes it very clear that our government takes the obligation to support both official languages very seriously. One of the key elements of the act requires us to ensure that Canadians can communicate with federal institutions and take advantage of their services in the language of their choice.

[Liane Roy]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Ashton, and thank you again for all the work you have done on Bill C‑13.

From our point of view, it's not so much a question of consulting the provinces as it is of consulting those best placed to talk about the cultural specificity of francophone communities and markets. For us, it's the organizations representing them that would be best placed in the provinces to determine the needs in these areas in relation to what we're discussing today.

Also, when we talk about francophone markets, we need to make sure that we understand the concerns of our communities, as you so aptly put it. It's very important that we understand and define what a francophone market is.

I'll pass the floor to FCFA communications director Serge Quinty if he would like to add something.