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 .

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

May I remind you that I was the ardent Ontario defender of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec.

Mr. Beaulieu, I welcome your comments. I'm very respectful of Quebec, I have family there. I respect the French fact. I also respect the fact that we live in a French-speaking minority throughout Canada and North America. On the other hand, I'm not prepared to listen to rhetoric that doesn't lead anywhere. That's my problem. The fact that we have English-speaking universities in Montreal and that, because we have English-speaking universities, we say that all anglicization comes from a university, that's a false debate.

We have to look at the reality of things, we have to have a debate that is true, and the real debate is that our young people are now using virtual platforms, to which neither Quebec's Bill 96 nor Canada's Bill C‑13 apply.

Mr. Lacroix, as an academic, and Mr. Bourdon, as a representative of a post-secondary institution, what are you doing to promote French learning on these virtual platforms? That's my question.

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

We did a study on Bill C‑13, which is toothless, if you ask me. Do you think the new Official Languages Act contains the necessary tools to improve post-secondary education in Canada for official language minority communities?

[Guillaume Rousseau, Law Professor, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for inviting me to talk to you about some of my language law research and, of course, my analysis of Bill C-316.

I often recall that in language law, there are two basic major models or principles: the principle of personality and the principle of territoriality. I am going to provide a brief overview of this issue before addressing the bill.

The principle of personality is simple. It offers individuals the freedom to choose among multiple languages for official use. This is the situation with official bilingualism or multilingualism. On the other hand, under the principle of territoriality, a single language is mandated, a single official language: the language of the majority.

A review of the scientific literature clearly shows that the territoriality model is really the only one that is able to enhance the vitality of a vulnerable minority language. The best example is the case of Canada, which is based on linguistic personality. The percentage who are francophone fell from 27.5% to approximately 22% between 1971 and 2021. In Switzerland, on the other hand, the francophone percentage rose from 18.4% to 22.9% between 1970 and 2017.

The reason I am telling you this is as follows. During the 1960s and 1970s, when there was a decline in French in Quebec, the Charter of the French Language and its territorial approach meant that a single official language was adopted. As a result, French made progress in the late 1970s and during the 1980s. After that, however, there came several judgments that had the effect of limiting the effect of the Charter of the French Language, which is also known as “Bill 101”, and striking it down in part. Since then, French has declined.

Why have there been so many judgments against the Charter of the French Language? As Prof. Brodie was saying, the Court Challenges Program was used to fund cases that led to judgments that struck down whole segments of the Charter of the French Language. This ultimately contributed to the decline of French.

I therefore propose that Bill C-13 be amended so that the program can no longer be used to challenge the Charter of the French Language and reverse the progress made by French. That would be logical. The 2021 white paper entitled English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada proposed that the federal government support French in the other provinces, as it has long done, and also support it in Quebec, rather than hurting it by funding challenges to the Charter of the French Language, for example. The amendment would be to that effect.

We could even go further to remedy this historic error. Funding challenges to Bill 101 like these was ultimately a historic error, so we might go further by proposing that actions in support of Bill 101 be funded, and this would help individuals who wanted to assert their language rights as provided in sections 2 to 6.2 of the Charter of the French Language. These are fundamental language rights. Obtaining federal funds to move forward would truly be a good thing, especially given that since 2022, with the new Charter of the French Language, fundamental language rights are now enforceable.

People really may bring proceedings to fill the gaps in the specific rules in Bill 101. I always offer the following example. Consumers of goods have the right to be served in French. In certain clothing stores in Quebec, however, the signs advertising clothing, particularly for children, are in English. No clothing is advertised in French. Could the right to be served in French, this fundamental language right of consumers, mean that clothing must always be advertised in French? We do not know, but it would be worth considering an action on that point being funded by the Court Challenges Program.

The purpose of this amendment would be so that someone could not challenge provincial legislation and certain groups of people would be able to use program funds to assert the language rights provided by provincial legislation, in particular the Charter of the French Language. The same logic should apply to Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State. Rather than challenging it and repeating the historic error surrounding Bill 101, the fund could be used to put into effect the right to secular public services provided by that law. That would really be preferable. It is what the amendments mean, fundamentally.

In addition, there are improvements to be made regarding governance. I found what Prof. Brodie proposed very interesting, in particular that various political parties nominate people to sit on the board that manages how funding is awarded.

We also think that if there could be even more Quebeckers—

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thanks to the witnesses for being with us today.

I'd like to clarify a few points.

The passage of Bill C-316 will send a clear message to provincial governments that it's important and necessary both to make the court challenges program permanent and to provide additional funding for it in future federal government budgets. Passing the bill we're considering today is the right thing to do because it will help individuals living in minority communities across the country.

My question is for both witnesses. Earlier we talked about experts and what that involves. During consideration of Bill C-13 last year, members of the committee who are here today discussed the importance of the court challenges program and the fact that financial decisions were made by an expert panel, not by politicians. That aspect is very important.

Would you please describe for the committee how that expert panel works, how its members are selected and how it operates independently?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. McKinnon. I'm privileged to be here today.

Mr. McKinnon, I want to thank you for introducing this bill. You said that a private member's bill shouldn't include provisions for the disbursement of public funds; that's done in accordance with the procedure and Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

Mr. McKinnon, you mentioned that your bill concerned only a small part of…. I disagree with you: Your bill is very important. It's very important that the court challenges program be made permanent. As you noted, Conservative governments cancelled the program twice. Consequently, it's very important that it be made permanent, and many thanks to you for the work you've done through this bill.

I also want to thank you for the contribution you made, with other colleagues and me, to Bill C-13, which helped to modernize the Official Languages Act. You supported the bill together with 300 other members of the House of Commons. All the parties voted for the bill, which wasn't that hard to do. I thank you for the work you've done.

As you know, Montfort Hospital in Ontario is still open thanks to the court challenges program. Ontario's Conservative government had cut off funding for the program and wanted to abolish it. The program made it possible to preserve Montfort Hospital, which provides services to Ontario francophones. Thank you for your bill.

Here's my first question. We're obviously talking about the official languages situation across Canada, and that's important, but you also mentioned persons with special needs. Would you please tell us more about the fact that this bill will also protect the rights of special needs individuals? You are also a major human rights advocate.

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

Thank you very much for that.

Since the Court Challenges Program was reinstated in 2017, 107 court cases related to official languages have been funded by the program. As the official languages critic for the NDP and as someone who played a significant role in passing Bill C-13, the modernization of official languages bill, which involved enshrining funding for the official languages rights and human rights branches of the Court Challenges Program, I recognize how important this work is.

The federal government doesn't always get it right, though, and even with the changes made to the Official Languages Act, we know that more challenges will occur. The official languages branch of the Court Challenges Program currently uses one-quarter of its total spending. Are you satisfied with this number? Where do you think it should be? Should it be increased and, if so, by how much? What are your thoughts?

[Liane Roy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Généreux.

Indeed, I briefly mentioned three recommendations in my presentation. One of them was also mentioned by Mr. Surette.

These three recommendations can be found in the report of the États généraux sur le postsecondaire francophone en contexte minoritaire. They are recommendations 30, 31 and 32.

Recommendation 30 is as follows.

That the federal government introduce a tool to monitor all investments it makes in post-secondary education in francophone minority communities.

So this relates to the question you posed about funding.

This means that, given that post-secondary education is a key factor in the vitality of francophone and Acadian communities, given the mandate of Treasury Board, which was set out in Bill C‑13 and which we are all familiar with, and given the magnitude of the problems facing the post-secondary sector in minority regions, it is important to understand the importance of the nature of investments by all federal authorities.

Essentially, what we're saying is that the left hand really needs to know what the right hand is doing.

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

Thank you.

As you know, there’s a difference between what happens in Quebec and what happens outside Quebec. If we compare the demographic weight of anglophones and francophones, we see that in Quebec, compared to francophone universities, anglophone universities are overfunded by the government of Quebec, by the federal government and, above all, by federal research funds.

Several francophone organizations outside Quebec are asking for greater accountability and for grants and funding to be independent of provincial contributions, because their situation is the opposite. In other provinces, provincial governments seem to give less money. The government of Quebec will oppose this, because it wants to have some latitude.

Do you think that an asymmetrical approach, which is the general direction taken in Bill C-13, could help us improve things? Francophone institutions outside Quebec, which have less weight, are asking for greater accountability in terms of the response from provincial governments.

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

Thank you very much.

What you're saying indirectly is that Bill C-13, which has officially become law, doesn't necessarily meet the needs of your institutions. You don't feel better equipped to protect the French language. Let's be honest: French is the more vulnerable language.

Do you agree with that statement?

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

Ms. Cassie, with respect to access to services in French, I'm going to talk a little about the justice system. We know that it's very important that people have access to justice services in French in our province. However, we know that no Manitoba judges are able to hear a case in French, and that's clearly unacceptable. That's not theoretical, it's a reality back home. For us, it's important to address an aspect of Bill C‑13 that could better foster bilingualism among judges.

Coming back to Manitoba, we don't have any judges who can hear cases in French. Do you think Franco-Manitobans should have access to adequate legal services in French? Is there a role for the federal government to play in this right now?

Bilingual Documents in the House

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The second matter relates to the deliberation on the NDP opposition day motion that took place on Monday, March 18. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier alleges that his privileges were breached when the government House leader moved an amendment to the motion during the debate and the translation delays prevented members from considering the amendment in French.

I submit that there are two matters to be considered in this case. The first is that the events took place on Monday, March 18 and the member raised the argument two days later. This was not the first opportunity to raise the matter.

Second is the fact that the events of the debate of March 18 simply do not support the allegation raised by the member. The member did not raise his question of privilege at the first opportunity, as required.

Page 145 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

There was no requirement for the member to have time to marshal sophisticated arguments or to substantiate his allegation. If I were to speculate, the member either did not take the matter seriously or did wait to raise the argument on Wednesday for the simple objective of disrupting proceedings related to the consideration of Bill C-29 on that day.

There is no procedural limitation on when an amendment may be proposed to a motion before the House while it is under consideration. The House was under Government Orders when the amendment was proposed. It is a well-established practice that amendments may be moved in either official language.

Citation 552, subsection (3), of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms was addressed this matter. It states, “Every motion that is duly moved and seconded is placed before the House by the Speaker as a question for the decision of the House. All motions must be presented to the Speaker in writing in either of the two official languages.”

I will concede that the amendment was moved later in the day, but this was the result of good-faith discussions between members of Parliament that lasted until shortly before the motion was moved, which is why it was moved in one language.

That is how the House of Commons is supposed to work: rigorous debate and discussions to come to consensus.

It is always the practice of the government to provide all parties with information in both official languages. However, in this case, it was not possible to provide a written copy in both official languages in the time provided, which is why the members of the House were provided with simultaneous interpretation of the proceedings of the House in both official languages.

Third, while the House was suspended to the call of the Chair, the table officers circulated to all parties the text of the amendment in French to ensure that members could understand what had been proposed as an amendment and what they were voting on.

Finally, when the House resumed, after the amendment had been made available in both official languages, the Speaker entertained additional points of order on the admissibility of the motion, which would have offered the opportunity for any member to intervene on the amendment in either official language.

When the Speaker put the question to the House on the amendment, it included text of the motion in French, clearly demonstrating that the text was available in both official languages.

The government strongly believes in the importance of both official languages in the Parliament of Canada. To demonstrate this, the House passed amendments to the Official Languages Act in Bill C-13. Bill C-13 would implement a series of proposals that promote the progression toward the equality of status and the use of English and French. Several provisions of the enactment are therefore concrete illustrations of the constitutional principles set out in subsection 16(3) of the charter.

The facts contradict the assertion by the member that he did not have access to the text of the amendment in both official languages, nor did he meet the test that the matter must be raised at the first opportunity. Therefore, I submit that the matter does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

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

Mr. Adam, I don't want you to have come here without having had an opportunity to speak. I love your title: you're the director of oversight and compliance at the Official Languages Centre of Excellence.

Can you tell me in 10 or 15 seconds how your role will change, now that Bill C‑13 has been passed, compared to last year? You can give me the broad strokes.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses once again for being here to help us improve the situation.

First of all, given the comments we've received, I hope there will be better standardization in terms of training. From what we're hearing, training is the responsibility of each of the departments and it isn't working. I hope we can find a way to improve the situation.

Furthermore, my young colleague Mr. Drouin mentioned earlier that young people of his generation were waiting 10 months or more before being hired to fill vacant positions. That's unacceptable. There are young people who go elsewhere and find a job in the private sector fairly quickly. We lose a lot of young bilingual people who go elsewhere because the public service takes too long. I hope you'll improve that aspect.

I would like to come back to what Mrs. Kusie said earlier about section 34 of the Official Languages Act.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Quell and Mr. Adam for spending months and months with us as we study Bill C‑13. I know it was very enlightening for them. They've been a great source of inspiration for us.

For the benefit of Canadians who are listening to us now, I'd like you to give us some clarification. I want to go back to our study on senior officials and Governor in Council appointments.

Mr. Quell, you mentioned a statistic of 95%. I think you mentioned it as well, Mrs. Hamoui.

In addition to deputy ministers, there are assistant deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers, directors and managers. So there are four levels of positions.

Does Bill C‑13 apply to those four levels? What improvements could be made to those four groups of managers who provide immediate supervision of employees?

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

Mr. Quell, I appreciate your answers. I'm not trying to attack you; I just want Canadians to see what progress has been made on Bill C‑13.

Again, could we get some kind of chart that explains where we are in the transition and how long it'll take to get there?

[Carsten Quell]

I can give you an example.

Bill C‑13 provides that Treasury Board is responsible for governance. Starting in the coming fiscal year, the Treasury Board Secretariat will be responsible for, among other things, the high-level Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers on Official Languages. We'll take that over from Canadian Heritage.