I agree that this bill is clearly unconstitutional, because of subclause (f) that appears in clause 4.1(1), which reads as follows:
(f) an arbitration award made following arbitration of a grievance or dispute regarding the negotiation, renewal or review of a collective agreement shall, at the request of one of the parties, be translated into English or French, as the case may be, at the parties' expense.
It will be translated as the case may be at the party's expense, so it's done in French, and only translated into English at the party's expense if they request it.
This provision seems to me to be in violation of section 16 of the charter dealing with provision of federal services in both languages. Moreover, I also think it's a violation of section 133 of the 1867 Constitution Act, which refers to documents of government being available in both English and French.
The relevant case law here is the case of the #Attorney General of Quebec v. Blaikie, from 1979, in which the Supreme Court argued that given that the protections under the Constitution should be regarded as growing rather like a living tree--they were citing the famous 1929 case, Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General)--we ought to give a broad interpretation to what is meant by government rules. They were referring specifically to a part of Bill 101, Quebec's language law, which said regulations and the rulings of regulatory agencies would be in French only, a provision that was almost identical to the one here, actually.
But section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, applies in equal measure to both the Quebec and federal governments, and hence I think that ruling applies to this and renders this particular part of the proposed amendment invalid. I think the rest of it is probably okay. This part perhaps could be taken out and adjusted, but as it stands now, I think it's clearly unconstitutional.