THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 13, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5 p.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of Bill C-13, 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.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I’d like to remind senators and witnesses to please keep your microphones muted at all times unless recognized by name by the chair. Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk and we will work to resolve the issue. Participants should know to do so in a private area and to be mindful of their surroundings.
[Translation]
We will now begin our meeting.
I am René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick, and Chair of the Senate Committee on Official Languages.
I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting: Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick, deputy chair of the committee; Senator Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba, member of the steering committee; Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec, member of the steering committee; Senator Bernadette Clement from Ontario; Senator Lucie Moncion from Ontario; Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec; Senator Clément Gignac from Quebec; Senator Percy Mockler from New Brunswick; and Senator Judith Seidman from Quebec, a former long-standing member of this committee whom we are very pleased to see. Welcome.
[English]
I wish to welcome all of you and viewers across the country who may be watching. I would like to point out that I am taking part in this meeting from within the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Today we begin our subject matter of Bill C-13, 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. To be clear, we are proceeding to a pre-study of the bill before it is sent to the Senate from the House of Commons.
[Translation]
In our first hour, we will hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux. He is accompanied by Katerina Michalyshyn, an analyst from his office.
I would like to remind the senators that we asked, back in March, that the Parliamentary Budget Officer proceed to an independent analysis and cost estimate of Bill C-13. His report was issued two weeks ago. It was circulated to the members and is now accessible on the committee web pages and the website of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Director.
Mr. Giroux, thank you for being with us and for conducting this type of analysis, which is very important for us. Welcome to the committee.
We’ll now hear your opening remarks, followed by questions from the senators.
Mr. Giroux, the floor is yours.
Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer: Thank you very much. Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today, our first official appearance before your committee.
We are pleased to be here to present the findings of our report entitled, Cost Estimate for Bill C-13: An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, which we were honoured to prepare at the request of this committee.
With me today I have one of two analysts who worked on the report, Katarina Michalyshyn.
Of the many provisions set out in Bill C-13, financial implications arise solely from the proposed extensions of French-language rights to federally regulated private businesses. We expect private compliance costs to implement these rights to be $240 million in one-time costs plus $20 million each year in ongoing costs. These costs arise primarily from language training and bilingualism wage premiums for managers in designated bilingual regions outside Quebec.
[English]
The 2021-22 Fall Economic Statement allocated $16 million in 2022-23 for initial implementation costs for federal departments and agencies. The $16 million does not cover ongoing administrative costs and was not intended to cover those costs. However, it will allow additional initial implementation activities to be undertaken. We requested details regarding how the money is currently being spent.
Despite a lack of cooperation from the responsible departments, we estimate federal administration costs to implement these rights to rise by at least $2.9 million per year. However, the amount of funding provided is fundamentally discretionary; the activities that can be undertaken in support of the implementation of Bill C-13 will be limited by the funding available.
Katarina and I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding this report or other PBO work. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Giroux.
We will now proceed to questions from the senators. Colleagues, I would remind you that each senator is allowed five minutes for both question and answer. I now give the floor to the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Thanks to the witnesses for being with us today.
My first question concerns the refusal by the three departments to provide essential information relating to Bill C-13. As a result of their refusal, we will be less effective in examining Bill C-13, particularly since an additional $16 million was allotted in the 2021 budget.
Is this the first time in your experience as Parliamentary Budget Officer that departments have refused to provide information?
Mr. Giroux: Thank you for that question, senator. Since I’ve been in this position, I’ve seen few cases in which departments refused to provide information and, until this unfortunate incident, no cases where departments refused to provide information on the ground that it was not yet public. We requested the information, and the three departments concerned refused to provide it to us on the ground that it had not yet been made public, whereas that’s not a valid exception under the act. However, I must congratulate and thank the Commissioner of Official Languages for his close cooperation, which helped us arrive at a plausible and reasonable cost estimate.
To answer your question briefly, senator, this is the first time since I’ve been in this position that I have encountered simultaneous refusals by three institutions.
Senator Poirier: What reasons did the departments give for refusing to provide the information?
Mr. Giroux: The reason they gave was that the information was not available to the public. Consequently, rather than provide the available information confidentially, as most departments and agencies do, the three departments concerned explained that the information wasn’t in the public domain and that they couldn’t provide it for that reason.
Senator Poirier: When will they be able to provide it?
Mr. Giroux: The day after the report was released, we received details from Canadian Heritage, which provided information to us and explained that an attachment that should have been emailed to us had not in fact been sent. It was unfortunately too late because the report had already been drafted, prepared, translated, published and submitted to the committee. In other words, the three departments forwarded the information once it had been made public.
Senator Poirier: You explain in your report that the government didn’t anticipate the costs that Bill C-13 would impose on the various departments. What kind of problems do you think that will cause when the changes planned under Bill C-13 are implemented? Is there a chance it’ll take longer to implement the changes?
Mr. Giroux: There are two possible scenarios. First, the government may not provide permanent funding to implement the act. The departments and agencies concerned could cut back activities in other sectors in order to fund activities made necessary under Bill C-13. The departments and agencies could also implement the bill in very minimal fashion to avoid cutting back on other activities they have to undertake. For example, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is organizing a number of activities. Bill C-13 could be implemented in a very minimal way, or the departments and agencies could allocate new resources from other sources or that are earmarked for other activities in order to fund activities under Bill C-13.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: Mr. Giroux, thank you for being with us this afternoon.
I think the government publicly stated it would be easier to estimate costs when it had a better idea of the content of the bill. The bill hasn’t yet been passed or received Royal Assent.
For example, Part 2, the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, is brand new and will definitely entail costs, unless the bill is amended, obviously.
I was wondering if you could tell us about the potential financial impact that may be anticipated if the new Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act is implemented across Canada, not just in Quebec, but also in regions with a strong francophone presence. I imagine you’ve also tried to determine the number of regions with a strong francophone presence that might be affected by the bill. No numbers are available because that’ll be determined over the next two years after Royal Assent. Would you be able to comment on that?
Mr. Giroux: The costs associated with the act’s implementation in Quebec are probably quite low because that presence, the ability to provide services in French and the capacity to supervise francophone employees, or to provide bilingual supervision, are quite strong there. We assumed that the regions that would subsequently be included in, and covered by, the bill would be in eastern Ontario, which obviously includes the national capital, as well as certain regions in northern Ontario. Those assumptions are based on discussions we had with the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Of course, costs would be much higher if the entire country were covered because the capacity to provide services and to supervise employees in French is much lower in regions where there’s a weaker francophone presence. For that reason, we limited ourselves to regions that had been suggested to us, in addition to the discussions we had with the Commissioner of Official Languages. If those linguistic obligations were extended across the country, it would be hard to estimate costs for the moment, but they would be much higher than those outlined in the report, far greater than $240 million to implement the act and $20 million a year thereafter.
Senator Gagné: Would you be able to share the information that Canadian Heritage sent you after your report was released?
Mr. Giroux: Of course. That’s something I’d be pleased to share with the members of the committee.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for being with us, Mr. Giroux and Ms. Michalyshyn.
Your report outlines the financial implications of the costs to businesses of language training and bilingual wage premiums, whereas language learning is considered as an investment in staff and the business. First, it somewhat improves market competitiveness, and it also helps to retain staff. However, that benefit isn’t calculated in dollar terms. Is there a reason for that?
Mr. Giroux: There are two main reasons.
First, my understanding was that the committee had requested an estimate of the financial impact, of the costs associated with Bill C-13 in its present form. I didn’t understand that it also wanted an estimate of its benefits. That’s the first part of my answer.
The second part is that benefits that accrue from the acquisition of an official language are often very hard to quantify. It’s something that’s quantifiable in certain sectors. However, it’s much harder to quantify benefits in a sector or context as broad as this, where we’re talking about all federally regulated businesses beyond a certain employee threshold. Those benefits may be wage-related and financial, but also cognitive and societal and associated with greater social cohesion.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you for being with us, Mr. Giroux.
When a government or minister proposes new legislation, I expect them to be aware of costs that the legislation will generate for Canadians. As I understand it, even the Commissioner of Official Languages doesn’t yet know what the costs associated with the implementation of Bill C-13 will be, even less so whether the government will grant him the necessary budgets, which I consider somewhat abnormal.
If we adopt the rules set forth in the bill, do you think we should expect an additional budget request before the end of the current fiscal year so the minister can keep her promises?
Mr. Giroux: That’s a hypothetical question, and the answer obviously depends on what the minister and government do.
What we also mentioned in the report, several times and in other contexts, is that implementation involves many discretionary items. The government may decide to allocate a lot or few resources to implementation of the bill as such. The funding allocated to this initiative, or to this bill, will definitely determine the extent to which its provisions are implemented and the degree to which compliance is audited in the areas of education and information.
Going back to the premise of your question, one obviously expects financial resources to be available to implement a bill and cost estimates to be prepared at least on a preliminary basis. That’s what I’ve seen in my practice over my years in the public service.
Senator Dagenais: Given the new obligations that businesses will have, which you estimate will cost $240 million, am I mistaken in saying that, in addition to the costs incurred by the government, the businesses concerned will pass those costs on to Canadian consumers?
Mr. Giroux: It’s hard to predict how much of the costs that private-sector companies and businesses incur will be passed on to their clients, including Canadian consumers. It might have minimal or average impact. That will really depend on the competitive environment and pressures exerted by the markets in which each of those businesses operate. Remember that our estimates are estimates; businesses could find ways to cut those costs, or they might also simply cope with higher costs. Your concern is legitimate: increased costs could be passed on to consumers in some cases, or even many cases. They could also be reflected in slightly lower profits.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Mr. Giroux.
Senator Moncion: Good evening, Mr. Giroux, and welcome to our committee meeting. I usually see you in the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, but you’re here now before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
You state in your report that some industries are subject to federal regulation and that some 3,413 managers in those industries don’t speak French. You say that, except in Quebec, this represents the majority of cases in federally regulated industries in those regions. You also estimate the costs associated with the training of those individuals.
I’d like to hear what you have to say about the costs associated with maintaining the language in those various industries, about the actual situation and how realistic it might be to make those individuals bilingual and about the costs associated with that. You estimate significant costs of $70,000 per employee and then discuss recurring costs. I’d like to hear you discuss that part of your analysis.
Mr. Giroux: Thank you for your question, senator. To do it justice, I’ll let Katarina answer it since she estimated those amounts.
Katarina Michalyshyn, Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer: Thank you for your question.
As you said, we estimated French-language training and maintenance costs in our report and determined they would come to $70,000 per employee for managers.
[English]
That’s for one-time costs. Then every year, to maintain French, there would be a cost of $2,400 per employee. This would be for all of the managers in the private sector, in the designated bilingual regions. As you can see in one of our report tables, the number of managers would vary widely. For example, in Quebec, only about 3% of managers don’t already speak both languages whereas, in northern and eastern Ontario, about 57% don’t, so the number of people who need to be trained to maintain their French would vary across regions.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for the answer. My next point is related to the salary bonus for bilingual employees.
Once they have done their training, are they considered bilingual? Do they have that access to that bonus? If so, is that factored into the amounts that you are providing?
Ms. Michalyshyn: I believe so. My colleague who is on paternity leave did the more detailed analysis, so I can confirm that in writing afterwards.
[Translation]
Mr. Giroux: With your permission, senator.
We call them wage premiums, but we aren’t necessarily referring to premiums that would be required under the bill but rather to the gap we currently see in the labour market. When you compare unilingual and bilingual employees who perform identical duties, there’s a wage gap, the amount of which is cited in the report. The same goes for managers.
With regard to language training costs, we relied on the experience of other employees who are already dealing with this kind of requirement, particularly in the public service.
I hope that answers your questions.
Senator Moncion: Yes, that answers my questions.
What happens is that you also have all the costs associated with language maintenance and development that have to be included in the calculations. I think the calculations you present are very realistic, but there’s a limit to what you can calculate. I’m still convinced that people have to continue learning on their own once their formal training is finished. Classroom training is very different from speaking a language fluently.
So what you’re presenting are ultimately additional costs that are necessarily included in the amounts the federal government represents as costs, that is to say amounts that will be available to implement Bill C-13. What you’re presenting goes beyond what’s currently included in the government’s calculations.
Mr. Giroux: Yes, we’ve included the costs that we forecast will be absorbed by the private sector. That’s in addition to what the government will absorb.
Maintenance costs are included; that’s why we estimate $20 million a year for second-language maintenance and to train the staff who will be hired because there will also be staff turnover. These costs are also reflected in part, but, as you mentioned, this isn’t something that’s easy to estimate given the fluid nature of the labour market.
Senator Moncion: Thank you very much.
Senator Clement: Welcome to the committee. Thank you for your report and your testimony today. I have two questions.
You noted that it’s a challenge to define “regions with a strong francophone presence.” I’d like more details on that. I imagine you came up with a way to respond to that challenge together with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages?
My second question concerns a policy on francophone immigration. As I’m sure you’re aware, the committee is considering the matter, and it’s very much a topic of discussion in all our communities. Would such a policy or amendment to Bill C-13 actually have significant financial implications? Would it be a lot to ask of you to address the issue in another report, for example?
Please comment on that.
Mr. Giroux: Thank you, senator.
We obviously used the definitions that were suggested to us, but not exclusively. I’d say we discussed this with the Commissioner of Official Languages and his office to determine what regions could reasonably be defined as bilingual. The government could obviously decide on a different definition to cover more or fewer regions and thus affect costs. So that’s the basis we relied on to determine the bilingual regions. There was no real science in it, and the government could select other regions by regulation.
As regards an immigration policy, if you’re referring to the costs incurred to develop such a policy, I don’t think those costs would be significant. There are tens, if not hundreds, of employees in the federal public service whose job it is to develop and propose policies, including immigration policies. I don’t think the federal public service would incur significant costs to develop a francophone immigration policy with francophone corridors. However, implementation of that policy might generate costs depending on what’s included in the policy. For example, costs could arise if financial incentives were included to recruit French-speaking immigrants or to encourage them to settle in minority regions. They could be determined only once you have the parameters of a francophone immigration policy, whether ambitious or otherwise. We could try to estimate costs if you provided us with parameters.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Chair: It’s my turn to ask a few questions, Mr. Giroux.
My first question concerns methodology and is designed to get a clearer idea of your consultation process. On page 6 of your independent analysis of the costs of Bill C-13, you say that your estimate is based on assumptions that were made after consultations with stakeholders, including the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. One of those assumptions is that businesses with fewer than 50 employees will be exempt from the language obligations established under the new Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act.
However, part 2 of Bill C-13 provides that the act will apply to businesses that employ fewer employees than the number of employees specified in the regulations. In other words, we don’t currently know the number of employees who will be subject to the new regulations.
From the consultations you conducted for the purpose of establishing your assumptions, could you give us some specific information on the stakeholders you met, apart from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages? In addition to those consultations, what other sources of quantitative and qualitative information did you use to determine those assumptions?
Ms. Michalyshyn: We also tried to speak to a large number of private-sector stakeholders, most of whom didn’t really have any idea how they would be affected given the lack of regulations.
Yes, we spoke at length with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. As I remember, when we drafted our report, the Office québécois de la langue française was also using the 50-employee threshold in their operations.
We gathered the opinions of a lot of stakeholders regarding the 50-employee threshold, particularly that of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Office québécois de la langue française. We felt that 50 was a good number to use in the report.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Michalyshyn.
In addition to the other stakeholders you mentioned, did you consult businesses in various industries, such as transportation or banking, and can you tell us exactly how that consultation went?
Ms. Michalyshyn: We mainly consulted groups that represented industries. For example, in the airline industry, we consulted a group whose name escapes me. We consulted the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec and various groups like that. Most of them didn’t have enough information at the time to provide us with any reliable data that we could include in our report, which explains why it contains no private-sector data.
The Chair: Mr. Giroux, in your analysis, did you consider the potential impact of the passage of Bill 96, An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec, which expands the obligations of Quebec businesses? Do you see any potential contradictions in the implementation of a provincial regime based on the Charter of the French Language for some businesses and a federal regime based on the future Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act for others? There’s a question of choice here. Are the financial implications significant for one or the other? Did you conduct that analysis?
Mr. Giroux: That’s a good question and one that had us scratching our heads when we considered it. When you asked us to prepare this report, Bill 96 was obviously still being hotly debated in Quebec. Its passage wasn’t a certainty. For that reason, we didn’t take it into consideration. However, since the bill has gone through its final stages and the National Assembly’s session has ended, we see that the financial implications associated with Bill 96 won’t be the most significant in the context of Bill C-13.
The implications in Quebec aren’t considerable; the most significant costs won’t be generated there, at least for the private sector. Private-sector costs will probably be more significant outside Quebec given the already strong francophone presence among employees and managers in Quebec. Apart from administrative costs, it probably won’t be all that costly to respond to complaints and educate employers. Those costs will be borne by the federal government, administrative costs that are ultimately far less significant than all the potential costs associated with Bill C-13.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Giroux. We will now have a second round.
Senator Dagenais: I’d like to go back to an observation you made that very much surprised me. Am I to understand that Bill C-13 could be passed but that the government might implement it in a limited manner to avoid the costs it might entail?
Mr. Giroux: Yes, that’s right. The implementation of a bill like that always has an element of discretion. It’s a bit like the police. Laws can be passed to make certain types of behaviour illegal or even criminal. The level of police services used to enforce the law is at the discretion of the authorities. The same is the case for Bill C-13. The government can decide upon the level of education or the implementation of the act by funding or not funding the services provided by intelligence organizations, and education and information organizations.
Senator Dagenais: As you just spoke with a former police officer, I fully understand your explanation. Thank you.
Senator Poirier: My question is a follow-up to what the chair asked earlier. I want to make sure I’ve understood. The chair asked whether there had been consultations with the various groups you mentioned, and what the outcomes were. I believe you said that in the course of some of the consultations with a few of the groups, you had not obtained the information because they did not have enough of it. Who would have this information? Why bother to meet with groups that are unable to give us answers? How will their circumstances be evaluated? How would they be able to obtain the information they need to take part in a consultation so that we could have an accurate picture of their situation?
Mr. Giroux: That’s a good point, senator. The two analysts held discussions with groups from the chambers of commerce, chamber of commerce associations and representatives of the airline sector. However, as written, the bill allows the government a lot of latitude in terms of regulatory application. Several of the regions where the bill will be implemented will be determined by regulatory means. When we met with private sector groups and asked them to estimate what the costs would be for them, they told us that they couldn’t give us an answer, because they didn’t know in which areas or regions of the country the bill would be applicable, because that was going to be determined at a later phase.
Who can give us information on this? The people who work in the departments, including the ministers, if they are familiar with the intent underlying the bill applicable to the regions that are going to be covered. We don’t have a good idea at the moment. That’s why we had to make a number of assumptions in evaluating the costs involved in implementing Bill C-13, because we didn’t have all the parameters.
Senator Poirier: Might it not have been preferable to answer these questions before tabling a bill? I’m not saying that we should wait two years before introducing a bill, but shouldn’t this exercise have been carried out ahead of time so that we could know where we were headed?
Mr. Giroux: I’m not an official languages expert. For you, the legislators, it’s something you would do well to specify before ruling on the application of the bill. Unfortunately, I’m not the one who can answer these questions. I don’t have any of these answers, but you’ve raised an excellent point. The government is asking you to decide whether or not to approve a bill when you are unaware of certain important details in terms of its implementation.
The Chair: Is it fair to say that some of the answers to the questions will be in the regulations?
Mr. Giroux: That’s right. That’s my understanding of it.
The Chair: That’s often one of the issues that arises between the study of a bill and the subsequent regulations. Thank you for your question, Senator Poirier.
Senator Gagné: In fact, information requested about cost estimates is extremely dependent on the regulations. The $16 million envelope mentioned in the economic update was based on Bill C-32. There have been changes since then, and Bill C-13 was tabled. The content changed. Bill C-13 is much more exhaustive, so I would imagine that the costs would definitely be higher. That’s what explains the difference between the $16 million and the analysis that you’ve just done of Bill C-13.
Mr. Giroux: That’s very possible, senator, but on the basis of the information obtained from the departments, it’s difficult to determine exactly why there is an envelope of $16 million for three departments and an agency rather than $1 million, $2 million, $3 million or $4 million. The subsequent response gives us an idea of the breakdown among the four organizations, but we don’t have sufficiently accurate details to justify this amount.
The level of activity required of the departments and agencies to implement Bill C-13 is eminently discretionary.
Senator Moncion: My question is in the same vein as those from my colleagues. Bill C-13 illustrates a passage in your report which mentions that “other provisions . . . require changes to practices without estimable financial costs.”
You mentioned the bilingual judges and orders that would have to be translated and made available to the public in both official languages at the same time.
It discusses everything that would affect the rights provided in section 23, the compliance agreements for the Commissioner and the financial penalties.
It would be fair to conclude that Bill C-13 will generate much higher costs than you can estimate at the moment, and that these are things we should take into consideration in analyzing Bill C-13 as a whole.
It’s financial import appears to be much broader than allowed for by the amounts allocated by the government.
Mr. Giroux: You have raised a good point. There are things for which the financial implications are minimal, like the appointment of bilingual judges to the Supreme Court. However there are others for which it is difficult to provide an accurate cost estimate because the government might, on the one hand, move forward aggressively to implement these changes, or on the other, do so with existing resources.
So these costs might be minimal or negligible, but they could also be much higher, depending on the energy and speed with which the government wants to implement the other changes for which costs have not been estimated yet. But it’s very difficult for us to estimate them accurately with any degree of certainty, given that most of these activities could well be undertaken with existing resources or at low cost.
Senator Moncion: We know, for example, that federal court orders or judgments in both official languages are not currently accessible. We have access to only some of these orders.
If all of these orders were suddenly made accessible on a bilingual basis, the costs would be enormous.
Mr. Giroux: Potentially, based on our reading of the bill, it means orders or decisions that are precedents. Which, among all the decisions made by a court or through an order, are precedents, and which are not? This obviously depends on the direction taken by Canadian law, which can change from one period to another.
So yes, it’s possible that this part might have a more significant financial impact.
Senator Moncion: That in fact brings us to consideration of the financial impact of the bill, which could potentially be much higher than we are currently assuming. Thank you.
Senator Gignac: It’s my turn now to welcome Mr. Giroux. As Senator Moncion mentioned, we usually see one another at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, where your contribution is always much appreciated.
Is it fair to say that the financial sector represents a very large component of federally regulated private businesses? The fact that 3,400 managers did not speak French was alluded to. Is this a significant proportion in the financial, banking and insurance sectors?
Ms. Michalyshyn: Thank you. No, because the banks are already regulated and required to offer services in both languages. They would not be affected very much by this bill, based on our analyses.
Senator Gignac: Allow me then to ask you a question about the possibly unexpected consequences of this bill, even if we are to assume that we are in favour of its adoption. I just have a question about the unexpected consequences. I am alluding to point 3.2 of your report, whose heading is “Offering Supervision in French.” And I quote:
Under the proposed Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, employees at federally regulated workplaces in the specified regions would have a right to carry out their work and be supervised in French, receive all communications and documents in French, and to use computer systems in French.
In your meetings with businesses, did this subject ever come up? I’d be reassured to know that when supervisors or managers in fields like computer systems or administration do not speak French, and where there are no direct relations with customers, their jobs could not be moved elsewhere, outside Quebec for example.
Were there any references to the fact that the bill could potentially lead to jobs being moved to other regions that are not affected by the act?
Mr. Giroux: That’s not a point that was raised in our consultations with private sector representatives. That doesn’t mean it’s not something that happens or a possibility, but it was not among our questions and it was not raised proactively by people in these private sector groups that were consulted. It’s perhaps something that the committee should pursue with some of these private sector representatives, because it didn’t come up in our discussions.
Senator Gignac: I am raising this issue because if it were ever to be a risk factor, it would be reassuring to know that it wouldn’t happen. In businesses, all it takes sometimes for everyone to start speaking English is for a manager not to be able to speak French. However, with respect to documentation that has to be supplied in French, and when computer systems have to be in French, it could lead some businesses to consider relocating. Given the labour shortage, it’s an issue that affects managers.
I felt that it was important to raise this point. If you should happen to obtain information about it later, particularly as many things will be decided under regulations, please send it to us. We’re talking about regions with a critical mass, and we don’t know which. Is Windsor, Ontario, part of this mass? And what about Winnipeg, in Manitoba? There are a lot of unknown factors.
Congratulations on being so modest, because cost estimates can vary enormously if something is included in the act, but not in the regulations.
I wanted to raise that point. Thank you.
Senator Mockler: Thank you for having asked Mr. Giroux to comment on the report he tabled, which made a lot of people think, particularly given that we’re talking about $240 million to train managers. Canada has two official languages, and mechanisms have to be in place to ensure proper accountability.
I too would like to thank Mr. Giroux for his professionalism, whether in the field of finance or in the reports he has prepared, because they make parliamentarians think about all the various aspects.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage was assigned responsibility for the application and governance of rights under the new Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act. I have two short questions and I’m sure the subject has already been raised by others. Should this responsibility be assigned to another minister? Should governance and accountability mechanisms be developed to monitor implementation of the new act for federally regulated private businesses in every Canadian province?
Mr. Giroux: I’d like to start by thanking you for those encouraging words, senator. You asked whether Canadian Heritage was the right entity for the implementation of this act and whether responsibility should be entrusted elsewhere. I personally have no opinion on the matter. It’s basically a question of the government machinery. It’s a question that should probably be put to the Commissioner of Official Languages, given his experience in dealing with federal and private sector organizations. He would be able answer the question more knowledgeable than I could.
As for governance and accountability mechanisms, in view of my mandate with respect to transparency and financial accountability, I can only support the idea that parliamentarians and Canadians should have a good understanding of the implementation and application mechanisms for the provisions of Bill C-13, including the regulations once they are known. That ought to be part of the government’s strategy to ensure that you, as legislators, be kept aware of progress in the act’s implementation.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Giroux, you have no doubt had the opportunity to discuss matters with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. On which aspects of Bill C-13 do your proposals agree or disagree?
Mr. Giroux: Thank you, senator. I wouldn’t want to comment on the FCFA’s intentions. I’m not convinced that we’ve consulted them exhaustively. Given that the scope of our report was limited to financial implications, I’m not certain that there is any significant overlap with what the FCFA is thinking or proposing with respect to Bill C-13. I wouldn’t want to guess at, or make any assumptions about, their intentions, nor would I want to put words in their mouth. So I’ll stop there, unfortunately.
The Chair: We have a few minutes left. I’m going to ask you a few rapid-fire questions, Mr. Giroux. Why does your analysis take account of the costs applicable to Canadian Heritage and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, but not to the Treasury Board or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada?
Ms. Michalyshyn: Thank you for the question. In our analysis, we felt that certain portions of Bill C-13 were closely linked to some parts of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages’ mandate. It was therefore easier to estimate the costs. The costs for some parts were easier to estimate than for others. Those for which we were able to do estimates pertained to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and Canadian Heritage, but not the Treasury Board.
The Chair: Does this mean that the bill assigns additional responsibilities to the Treasury Board? It’s clear that the Minister of Immigration is being asked to develop a francophone immigration policy. You didn’t have enough information on this to assess the new responsibilities of, let’s say, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, in terms of these costs?
Mr. Giroux: I’ll try to answer this question. Generally speaking, the Treasury Board Secretariat has resources for official languages. That’s also true for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. These departments have the capacity to develop and analyze policies that ought to enable them to fulfil their obligations under Bill C-13.
The Chair: We’d like to begin by thanking you for this analysis, which is very important for us. Have you done this type of analysis for other bills? Is this an exercise you are asked to carry out frequently? If so, have you encountered more, fewer or about the same number of pitfalls as in the study of Bill C-13?
Mr. Giroux: We are asked this kind of question fairly often for private members’ bills introduced by MPs or senators. However, this is the first time we’ve had departments decline to collaborate. Usually departments and agencies collaborate; they are open and relatively transparent. They agree to share confidential information on condition that it is not disseminated or used for our work other than by indirect disclosure. This was the first time we encountered this kind of obstruction or refusal on grounds that the information was not publicly available.
The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing and for your analysis. It clarifies some important considerations for this bill. Some people would say that the modernization of the Official Languages Act, a quasi-constitutional statute, would be invaluable. I believe your analysis has clarified many aspects of it. It will be invaluable when the time comes to study the bill. We thank you for being here, Mr. Giroux and Ms. Michalyshyn. Once again, thank you for your comments and I wish you a pleasant evening.
Mr. Giroux: Thank you very much.
The Chair: We now invite Senator Deacon to join us around the table.
[English]
Colleagues, for the second hour, we have representatives from the Quebec Community Groups Network,, or QCGN, before us. They are a group representing Quebec’s English-speaking community. Before welcoming our guests, I want to welcome our colleague Senator Marty Deacon, who will be here for the second hour.
From QCGN, we are pleased to welcome Ms. Eva Ludvig, president; the Honourable Joan Fraser, Board Member and former senator, whom we’re so happy to meet again; and Marion Sandilands, counsel. Welcome, everyone, and thank you for being with us.
Ms. Ludvig, allow me to congratulate you on your recent appointment to the presidency of QCGN. The floor is yours.
Eva Ludvig, President, Quebec Community Groups Network: Thank you. Good afternoon, Senators Cormier and Poirier and honourable members of the committee. I am Eva Ludvig, President of the Quebec Community Groups Network, QCGN. Appearing with me this evening, as was mentioned, is my fellow board member the Honourable Joan Fraser and our legal counsel Marion Sandilands.
The QCGN is pleased to be before you today to provide testimony on Bill C-13 during your pre-study of the legislation. We have submitted a brief to this committee that covers Bill C-13 in its entirety, but we understand that today’s meeting is focused on the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act, so we will confine our comments to that part of Bill C-13 and look forward to coming back to discuss the bill’s proposed amendments to the Official Languages Act.
We begin by noting that this committee’s significant study on modernizing the Official Languages Act, conducted between 2017 and 2019, brought Canada’s two official language communities together, arriving at a consensus on how to move forward on this major legislative project — a decade in the making.
Bill C-13 is not the legislation we asked for or agreed to. Indeed, we assess Bill C-13 as a fundamental shift in the Government of Canada’s approach to the country’s official languages and an abandonment of half a century of official language policy. We urge this committee and this chamber to give Bill C-13 the careful scrutiny that such a major change requires.
The government is proposing to walk away from linguistic duality from coast to coast to coast and is making major concessions to Quebec, which we believe upsets the careful constitutional balance and equality in law between English and French, with unknowable interpretative effects.
The use of French in federally regulated private businesses act is an example of this policy shift, creating a regime for language rights in private communications for only one official language on a territorial basis for federally regulated businesses.
Let us be clear: There is no evidenced-based reason for this act. A 2013 Industry Canada study on Language of Work in Federally Regulated Private Businesses in Quebec not subject to the Official Languages Act concluded that:
. . . employees of federally regulated private-sector businesses in Quebec (not subject to the OLA) seem generally able to work in French in their workplaces.
Christian Paradis, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Quebec said at the time, said “There is nothing in the study that indicates the need for legislation to regulate language of work in Quebec.”
The government will say that the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act contains protections for English-speaking workers and does not prevent enterprises from communicating with their customers in a language other than French. This is window dressing; the majority of English-speaking workers are not, in fact, protected, and permissions are not rights. This act abandons 1.1 million English-speaking Quebecers.
We ask ourselves: How could the Government of Canada create new language rights for French only, as if the members of our minority community do not work for or communicate with federally regulated businesses? How will it explain to English-speaking Quebecers that they have fewer language rights under federal legislation than francophone citizens?
Furthermore, the new act would offer federally regulated enterprises a choice between being subject to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, Bill 101, and now Bill 96, and federal law — this in an area of federal jurisdiction.
It is important to bear in mind that now that Bill 96 has passed, the entire Charter of the French Language is subject to both the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the even more sweeping “notwithstanding clause” of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. This extraordinary choice — to abide by federal law or to enter a Charter-free zone of provincial law — is being offered only to companies operating in Quebec. We believe this has major constitutional implications. We hope the Senate will study it not only through the lens of language policy but also with an eye to the legal and constitutional implications.
I now turn it over to Senator Fraser.
[Translation]
The Honourable Joan Fraser, Board Member, Quebec Community Groups Network, and former senator: Good evening, Mr. Chair, senators, ladies and gentlemen.
It’s my turn now to thank you for having us. I should point out that over the past few weeks, I’ve had an opportunity to speak with several of you, and with some of your colleagues, about this bill. I’m very grateful that you have allowed me some time to talk about it. I am also grateful for your observations on the matter.
[English]
These are extraordinary times for Canada’s official languages. Unnecessary conflicts are resurfacing that we had worked long and hard — and together — to move past. I wonder how strange the linguistic rancour of recent years must sound in the ears of our young people, who are so comfortable with and welcoming of all manner of diversity. These are young people for whom speaking more than one language is a virtue. They are a generation that sees other languages not as a threat but as an opportunity.
The use of French in federally regulated private businesses act comes at the end of a long line of private members’ bills to apply the Charter of the French Language to these enterprises in Quebec. The argument for those bills was that a mischief existed in the law because those businesses were subject to neither the Official Languages Act nor the Charter of the French Language; they existed in a linguistic no-man’s land. We agreed that they had to be brought into and made subject to language laws.
During this committee’s modernization study, both the QCGN and FCFA recommended that federally regulated businesses be subject to the Official Languages Act.
We were pleased to see that the committee partially took up our recommendation. In 2019, you recommended that the OLA communication and services obligations be extended to federally regulated private carriers. At the time, the government indicated that the idea was interesting but impractical, given the costs involved. Times change.
This committee also had the great foresight to request independent analysis of the financial cost of Bill C-13 from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom you’ve just had before you. His recent report, as well as his testimony this evening, were most illuminating.
[Translation]
I’ll stop there. We — a delegation made up entirely of women — are prepared to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your comments and for being here.
We will have five minutes each for questions and answers. We will start with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Thank you both for being with us today.
I have a couple of questions. My first question is on the use of French in federally regulated private business act. It will give the federally regulated private businesses the choice of which linguistic jurisdictions it operates under, which is provincial or federal. In your brief you state that it sets a dangerous precedent.
Could you elaborate on the dangerous precedent it would set and would the dangerous precedent be limited to linguistic minority communities or broader?
Ms. Ludvig: I can answer that. Up until now, the Charter of the French Language was not applicable to any federally regulated enterprise. It really was in the provincial domain. Now we are taking federal activities and allowing them to be regulated under provincial legislation, and that is unprecedented in the language field.
Ms. Fraser: Can I add something to that?
Ms. Ludvig: Of course.
Senator Poirier: Yes, please do.
Ms. Fraser: Senator Poirier asked if this precedent applies only to linguistic matters.
Senator Poirier: Or broader.
Ms. Fraser: I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that it could have broader implications and that it could have implications beyond Quebec should any other provincial government wish to set up a regime where its laws and regulations would apply to federally regulated enterprises. I think a federal government might have some difficulty refusing such a provincial initiative, given the precedent that is being set with this bill. Given that the Charter of the French Language now is covered by the “notwithstanding clause,” you can see implication upon implication arising out of this, I think.
Senator Poirier: The use of French in federally regulated private business act also stipulates that two years after its coming into force, regions with a strong francophone presence will also be subject to this law. In your opinion, is the government not limiting linguistic rights contrary to francophones in Quebec and certain regions with strong francophone presence? And will these regions with the strong francophone presence be the same as significant demand from Part 4 of the act?
Ms. Ludvig: These are very good questions to which we don’t have the answer, but it does open the door to all kinds of new limitations to either francophone communities or obviously, as we say, the English-speaking community.
This is where you start having difficulty when you start creating new regulations, new laws that are not clear as to whether they are federal or provincial. I think that it could lead to difficulties. We will have to see how that works out.
Senator Poirier: Senator Fraser, did you have anything to add?
Ms. Fraser: I don’t think so.
Senator Seidman: Nice to see you, Ms. Ludvig, and former colleague Senator Fraser, especially nice.
I would like to ask two questions and hopefully the two of you will decide who will reply. The first one has to do with the move from symmetry to asymmetry and why this is a problem. The second one is that you point out that the federal government seems to be backing away from protecting its constitutional powers in terms of federally regulated businesses, and I would like you to explain that issue more. Thank you.
Ms. Ludvig: Well, up until now, the Official Languages Act has been equal for both official language communities. It was to create equality. It was actually designed over 50 years ago to make French equal to English and to protect both minority language communities. I have to tell you, that doesn’t mean it was the same treatment. The needs were different. There was no question that the needs of the francophone communities outside Quebec were dealt with according to their own needs, and the same with the English-speaking communities. Their environments and their own social, political and economic needs were taken into consideration.
This was very possible under the Official Languages Act, under the notion of equal or equality. Now we are putting a notion into the title of the Official Languages Act, “substantive equality.” What we’re doing is coding “substantive equality.” How will that be interpreted by courts? Certainly very different from having equality. Somebody becomes unequal in this, and that’s the English-speaking community.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
Senator Fraser, perhaps you could explain and help us to better understand the federal government backing away from protecting its constitutional powers in the federally regulated businesses restrictions.
Ms. Fraser: Perhaps I will note, because she’s too modest to do so, that Eva Ludvig knows this subject inside out and backwards. She worked for 20 years with the Office of the Official Language Commissioner in Quebec.
It seems to me that when in an area of federal jurisdiction, the federal government says, “Oh, well, you don’t have to obey our law if you don’t want to,” you can obey provincial law instead,” then you are setting up all kinds of jurisdictional grey zones. I can imagine, for example, comparable confusion arising perhaps one day over environmental laws or any number of things, not to mention linguistic regimes in provinces other than Quebec where a provincial government one day may not be sympathetic to the concept of official languages from coast to coast to coast in Canada.
The federal government has jurisdictions and in my view it has a responsibility to exercise its responsibility in those jurisdictions. That’s why we find it so worrisome, not only in terms of federally regulated private businesses, but more broadly the government is backing away from symmetry which is part and parcel of the fabric of this country. It is part of the constitution of Canada. It has been part of the Official Languages Act for 50 years, and it has been something that we have built modern Canada upon. Suddenly to say, “No, it doesn’t matter” is not a good harbinger for the future.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Welcome, Ms. Ludvig and Senator Fraser. It’s good to see you again.
[English]
Having read your memoir and also hearing your answers, are you saying that the proposed use of French in federally regulated private businesses act grants rights to francophones that it does not grant to anglophones, and that it poses a risk to the rights of Quebec’s English-speaking communities recognized under the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Ms. Ludvig: Yes, that’s exactly what we are saying.
Senator Gagné: Could it be subject to a legal challenge?
Ms. Ludvig: I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine so. I will turn it over to our counsel.
Marion Sandilands, Counsel, Quebec Community Groups Network: I am a lawyer, but I will decline to speculate on potential legal challenges to this law at this time.
Ms. Fraser: I am not a lawyer, but the elements that refer to the Charter of the French Language are covered — not entirely, but in large measure — by the “notwithstanding” clause in the Constitution of Canada. The whole thing is exempt from the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Legal challenges are already being planned for parts of Bill 96, but they are having to be devised, shall we say, very creatively. Who knows how it will turn out.
Senator Gagné: Thank you. Last week, the Province of Quebec corresponded with the members of Parliament in the other place on Bill C-13. Would you mind providing a commentary on their proposal, the importance and the value to maintain the reference to the English-speaking minority within the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Ludvig: Well, the QCGN has not received these recommendations, so we cannot comment on them specifically. But we did study Quebec’s position paper of February 2021. From that paper, it was clear that Quebec was asking for a very asymmetric framework in the OLA to focus on the protection and promotion of French only, and to cease to recognize the English-speaking minority in Quebec as a minority. Then Bill C-13 introduced that asymmetry, although it continues to recognize the English-speaking community as a minority. It’s questionable as to how that will work out.
Quebec also wanted the Official Languages Act to treat Quebec differently, which Bill C-13 does, and they also advocated for subjecting federally regulated private businesses to the Charter of the French Language — and Bill C-13 creates this option — and which, as Senator Fraser has just explained, is worrisome; not covered. Now, under the “notwithstanding” clause, what does that mean for the federal activities in the province?
The Chair: Thank you for your answers.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Greetings to my former colleague. Ms. Fraser, I am happy to see you again. I have a quick question for you. The Minister Responsible for Canadian Relations and the Canadian Francophonie, Ms. Sonia LeBel, last week mentioned a number of expectations with respect to Bill C-13. I will briefly summarize a few of her points. She feels that Bill C-13 ought not to be promoting only English in Quebec, and that this should be the case in all the other provinces. She added that the act should be requiring the federal government to assign more importance to French than English in its bilingual communications in Quebec. I was wondering what you thought about this.
Ms. Fraser: I think you might be able to guess.
Senator Dagenais: A little.
Ms. Fraser: As we just mentioned, we find it truly essential to maintain symmetry in the wording of the act for the legal status of the two languages. It’s the very opposite of what Quebec did with its own legislation and the very opposite of what Quebec is asking the federal government to do now.
We believe — allow me to repeat myself — that symmetry in national language policy is absolutely essential. We can — and in Quebec, we want to — say that in a province there will be a regime for everything that pertains to provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec, the choice was obvious, particularly with Bill 96, which makes it clear that only French matters. The place of English is virtually ignored. Sometimes, the possibility of using a language other than French is mentioned, but there is no recognition of the existence of even an anglophone minority in Quebec.
It therefore seems to me that this philosophy is totally opposed to what has always applied, meaning the philosophy underpinning the federal act, which we believe should continue to be the core principle for the federal act.
Ms. Ludvig: Can I add a point?
Senator Dagenais: Yes.
Ms. Ludvig: The other thing is that Quebec decided to define the anglophone community as a single community, like the historical anglophones. That cuts it almost in half, and takes away rights from many anglophones who have been here for a long time and who need to obtain the same services as all Quebecers.
Senator Dagenais: Do you think, then, that the bill will irritate a number of groups so much that they will challenge it in court on the basis of the 1867 Constitution as soon as it is adopted?
Ms. Ludvig: Anything is possible. I can tell you one thing, and it’s something that worries me too, and that is that the linguistic duality, the official languages, represent a Canadian value that all Canadians are very proud of. If we adopt Bill C-13 as is, it will reduce Canadians’ pride in the Official Languages Act and in all Canadian values based on the linguistic duality. I would just like to ask Marion, our legal counsel, to talk to us about it.
Ms. Sandilands: I’d like to add one point with respect to Quebec’s position. In our brief, we recount the history of the consensus reached among official language minority communities in 2018-2019. The committee’s report even reflected this consensus. However, it’s clear to us that after this consensus was achieved, Quebec’s entry into the conversation changed everything. In paragraphs 36 to 48 of our brief, there is a description of how we believe Quebec’s arrival completely changed the conversation for bills C-13 and C-32.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much Ms. Sandilands and Ms. Ludvig.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: I am glad to be here today. Thank you to our guests. This is not my wheelhouse of expertise, but I am trying to understand this from all angles. I want to preface it that way and with specific respect to Bill C-13.
Tonight was divided into two halves. The PBO, who has now left, presented a report followed by questions. I would like to know what our guests this evening thought of what you heard — I think you were there — or an opinion from your perspective based on that report earlier this evening?
Ms. Fraser: We were busy preparing for this section of your meeting, so our attention to the PBO was frequently interrupted. From what I’ve seen previously about his remarks, his findings, as I understand it, he is saying that a great portion of the added costs for enterprises would be in regions outside Quebec that have significant francophone presence. That might lead to some political ruckuses when it comes into effect.
I want to stress that we at the QCGN formally recommended that those enterprises be brought under the Official Languages Act. We believe it is important that wherever there is a reasonable number of members of a linguistic minority, those people get service in their language — and to the extent possible be able to work in their language.
We are not just pleading the cause of English-speaking Quebecers. We have a long history of supporting francophone communities outside of Quebec — politically and legally. When I say that this seems to be where the cost is going to be greatest, that is not, in my view, a reason to say those companies should not come under the Official Languages Act. But as you look ahead, you can see that perhaps there have been questions this evening about whether there will be legal cases brought and that kind of thing. I think there might be at least some political argument advanced in some of these regions. I would hope this committee’s work would help to defuse any such arguments ahead of time.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to comment?
Ms. Ludvig: Not at this time.
Senator Clement: Good evening to the witnesses, and thank you — in particular to Madam Senator. I’m new to this institution, and I now more fully realize how much work senators really do. I’m grateful to you, Madam Senator, for your work.
I am a former Montréalaise, a former Québécoise. Now, I’m a Franco-Ontarienne. I grew up in the days of Bill 101 with English and French family. You can imagine the dinner conversations I had in those years. I have to tell you that now with Bill 96, those dinner conversations, in true Québécois fashion, are also heated in my French and English families. So I’m trying to sort out Bill C-13 in the context of this Bill 96 in Quebec.
You mentioned, Madam Senator, that you had good conversation with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, and you were on board in the previous iteration and now. Have you communicated with the FCFA recently concerning this current version of Bill C-13? Where would you be now compared to them? Where would things converge or diverge now with the FCFA?
Ms. Fraser: I have not personally been in touch with them. I know that the QCGN has on the staff level. I believe our previous president, who only left us a week ago, was in touch with them, although I’m not sure about that. But I can’t speak to their position. It’s obvious that their principal concern is for francophone communities elsewhere than in Quebec. To the extent that this bill advances the interests of those communities, that would be their main focus, but I haven’t been in touch with them myself.
And thank you for being so welcoming.
Ms. Ludvig: As mentioned in the brief we gave you, we have had very close relationships leading up to, and we were on the same wavelength in terms of modernizing and so on. It was when things changed in Quebec that we started going in divergent directions, which is unfortunate.
Senator Clement: Regarding English-speaking Quebecers, could you comment on whether this use of French in federally regulated private businesses act poses a risk to their employability? Could it pose a risk to their advancement and, in fact, are they currently well represented in these businesses?
Ms. Ludvig: I could speak to that, having worked in the field for a long time.
What has been very evident in Quebec is that federally regulated businesses, by and large, provide very good services in both languages. There have been very few situations like we saw with Air Canada and as we have seen in the past. You didn’t see that happening in Quebec with the services. What is really worrisome now is the future of our young people who would want to work in federally regulated businesses, which is a good employer. Because of the requirements for bilingualism — and our young people are bilingual — you do find that these are good positions for which they are qualified.
All this changes that environment. The English-speaking community, contrary to all the myths, has a higher unemployment rate and a higher poverty rate. This is just another problem that will affect employment, and possibly services, for English speakers in Quebec.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: Welcome to the committee. It is nice to see you, Senator Fraser, and your colleagues.
I want to go back to the question that Senator Clement was asking about employment and the risks. How are they impacted when they do apply for federally private businesses?
Ms. Ludvig: When you work for any of those companies right now, you can have your HR services, payment and training on the same level. Francophones and English speakers both have access to all of these. Now all of this is up in the air in terms of communications to employees. And then, of course, there’s the question of communications to clients and customers and how they will be affected, particularly since companies that will be under the Charte de la langue française will have to do a lot of work to demonstrate that an employee has to have English in order to be employed.
Senator Moncion: I want to go back to a comment you just made to Senator Clement about the higher unemployment rate of English-speaking Quebecers in Quebec.
Ms. Ludvig: Yes. The unemployment rate of English-speaking Quebecers is higher than for the francophone majority in Quebec. I don’t have it at the tip of my fingers, but we could send you the data on that.
Senator Moncion: I just want to understand why it is so in Quebec. Why is it so in the federally private businesses?
Ms. Ludvig: I am talking about the possibility of employment. It is important not to cut off another channel of employment since we already have a higher rate of unemployment among English speakers. Up until now, federally regulated businesses, like the Public Service of Canada, were opportunities for English-speaking, bilingual young people to be hired. They have good chances of being hired because they are bilingual, and they have to provide services in both French and English.
Ms. Fraser: On that point, Senator Moncion, the proposed bill, not just for companies that would choose to go by Bill 96, but the proposed federal legislation says that companies must provide services in French. They may provide services in English. They may require, therefore, some employees to be bilingual, but they will have to demonstrate that those employees need to be bilingual, French-English, that they need to speak English as well as French. That’s a hassle.
It is going to be much easier for companies to say bilingualism not only is not an asset, but we don’t want to go through all the fuss of demonstrating that it is needed so that we can provide services in English, so we don’t need to hire these bilingual anglophones, if you see the chain there.
Senator Moncion: Thank you, the nuance.
My other question is in the document that you provided to us, you are asking that the Charter of the French Language be removed from Bill C-13. Could you give us the rationale behind this? I know it’s in your document, but I want to hear it from you.
Ms. Ludvig: We explained that the Charter of the French Language invokes the “notwithstanding” clause. That means Bill C-13 or federally regulated businesses would actually have to also apply the charter in the same way, and there would be no recourse to the courts.
I will turn to our counsel, who will enlighten us better on that.
Ms. Sandilands: Thank you. In our brief, we give a few reasons why the references to the Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13 — both the Official Languages Act section and the federally regulated private businesses section — are problematic. As Ms. Ludvig pointed out, one of the big ones is the presence now after Bill 96 of the “notwithstanding” clause over the entire Charter of the French Language. It would be the first time ever for federal legislation to explicitly recognize a provincial law that uses the “notwithstanding” clause in that manner.
Other reasons why it seems to be a bit of an anomaly in the Official Languages Act, for example, is that it is the only provincial legislation that is singled out. In the clause that cites the different provincial language regimes that promote English and French, actually, the Charter of the French Language is the only provincial legislation on that list. Why would the Official Languages Act single out only one piece of provincial legislation when there is actually quite a bit of other provincial legislation that promotes the French language and bilingualism in other provinces? That seems to be an anomaly.
Also, in Bill 96, it transforms the Charter of the French Language. It’s not the Charter of the French Language that we had last year. The new Charter of the French Language has been transformed under Bill 96, and it is not clear whether that reference in Bill C-13 really takes into account all the things that have changed in the Charter of the French Language from Bill 96. Those are some of the main reasons the QCGN has recommended that those references be removed.
Finally, for the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act, there is a reference in section 6 of that act — and we’ve talked about it already — about the choice of law, the choice of the Charter of the French Language for the federal law, and we have explained some additional reasons why that is problematic from a constitutional perspective.
Senator Moncion: Senator Fraser, I don’t know if you wanted to add something to this.
Ms. Fraser: I’m always hesitant to try and elaborate on Marion, because she knows her stuff so very well. I think she made the case.
Senator Moncion: That’s what I wanted to hear from you. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I will ask a question before the second round, just to put this on the record, and I will be quite direct in my question to you. We received your brief, of course, which is very important, and there is a lot of content in there.
Do you simply think that Part 2 of Bill C-13 should be simply withdrawn from the bill, for example? What kind of specific amendments could you give us today so that we can put this on the record to understand specifically which amendments you would like to bring forward?
Ms. Ludvig: Well, obviously, the mention of La Charte de la langue française; that’s number one.
Second, the question of only protecting the rights of one language group, the francophone, French-speaking, we think it should be equal. English-speaking employees should have the same rights, and French-speaking employees should have the same rights.
I think our counsel will probably have more to add to that.
Ms. Sandilands: Ms. Ludvig covered the substance of our recommendations. Our recommendations 8 and 8A, which are found in Appendix B of the brief. And 8 says any language rights should extend to English and French speakers. So to state the obvious, that is not an easy amendment to this act the way it is crafted. And 8A is specifically about removing the reference and the choice of being subject to the Charter of the French Language, and that’s in section 6 of the act.
The Chair: Senator Fraser, do you have something to add to that?
Ms. Fraser: Just a thought. Given that the title of the proposed legislation specifically refers to the French language, some may be wondering whether it would be going against the very principle of the act to make the changes we recommend.
I don’t think it would. I think that it is inherently a protection and promotion of the French language to bring these enterprises under the federal linguistic regime. As Eva Ludvig said, in principle, it is a good thing for Quebec. I think it is vital for regions outside Quebec. The protection and promotion of the French language is a noble, noble cause; it is vital to the country, but it must not be done at the expense of other minorities, in my view.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, Ms. Ludvig and Senator Fraser, for really helping us understand the negative consequences to the English-speaking minority language community in Quebec.
I think the issue about the reference to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language is a critical one, and I know Senator Moncion asked about that, and you expanded to some extent. I would like to go back to that, because I think it really bears emphasizing.
If you have more to say about the impact of having Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, a provincial law referred to by name in Bill C-13, the impact of that, would it negatively affect the interpretation of recognized rights of the English-speaking community? In fact, would it contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which state that English and French have equality status and equal rights and privileges? I’d like to just give you the opportunity, because it’s a big ask to remove it, and you say it should be removed. I would like you to have the opportunity to further speak to how it might impact recognized rights and, in fact, contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I will add one last thing. The reason I’m emphasizing this is because a couple of days ago in the French press, there was a quotation from the Quebec Justice Minister, Simon Jolin-Barrette, who said that he would like that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms no longer apply in Quebec.
I’m going to give you the floor and see if you have something to say about that.
Ms. Ludvig: I would repeat that the Charter of the French Language has invoked or will be covered or is covered now by the “notwithstanding” clause. So there is no recourse for English speakers in the courts to protect their rights, to speak for their rights in terms of being able to get service.
It is important for everyone to be aware of the changes that have come to the charter under Bill 96. The English-speaking community has lived with and accepted Bill 101, has accepted the Charter of the French Language the way it was, and the changes are substantial, aside from the “notwithstanding” clause. There are significant changes, including access to justice. It touches our educational institutions. It has impact on the Indigenous community, so it is huge. Again, it narrows the definition of which English speakers have rights, and which ones. The historic anglophones is a much smaller group than actual English speakers.
So it is huge, and the way it stands now it would have tremendous negative impact on the English-speaking community.
Ms. Fraser: Could I add a little something here?
The Chair: Please do.
Ms. Fraser: It seems to me highly possible that if this proposal to give companies the ability to choose which regime is adopted that there will be, certainly from vocal quarters in much of Quebec, political pressure for those companies to abide by the provincial regime, to choose the provincial regime. That regime — as we have said, as Eva just said again — blocks off a good deal of the potential recourse to the courts.
Let me give you one example that has been much discussed in Quebec. The Office de la langue française is given the power to go into businesses without a warrant and look at any documents or electronic equipment — your phone, your laptop, anything you like — to see if, in its view, the rules under Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language, are being respected. It can do this, as I say, without a warrant on the basis of an anonymous complaint.
If you feel yourself being pressed, perhaps by your customers, to abide by this law, it is not just that the principle of the Charter of the French Language is antithetical to the fundamental philosophy of the Official Languages Act, it’s that you may find yourself with real practical problems, and your recourse to the courts will be sharply diminished.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Fraser. We’ve witnessed many debates concerning francophone rights in Canada, and more specifically in Quebec. Today, in 2022, how would you assess the gradual decline in French and the fact that immigration is seen as the way to stop the erosion that has been affecting francophone groups?
Ms. Fraser: Personally, I’ve not seen any erosion of French in Quebec. It’s true that there has been an increase in the number of immigrants whose mother tongue is neither French nor English. However, their children will all become francophones because they are steered to French-language schools.
If there’s a problem, it’s a temporary one. We all know people whose parents speak neither French nor English, but whose children are francophone. I know many such people. So it’s a transitional problem more than anything else.
Senator Dagenais: Don’t you think that the policy goal of Bill C-13 is to respond to the decreasing demographic weight of francophones in the country?
Ms. Fraser: It’s not decreasing in Quebec.
Senator Dagenais: What about in Canada?
Ms. Fraser: It’s true that everybody’s worried about the demographic weight of francophones in Canada. No effort should be spared to help these communities. I’m not sure that the Quebec Companies Act will help the communities that so desperately need it. To be sure, we have to do our best to help them.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for your answers, Ms. Fraser.
Senator Gagné: Earlier on, I asked about a potential court challenge — and I respect the fact that you didn’t want to speculate on that. However, I would like to hear what you might have to say about the fact that the bill nevertheless ensures the institutional viability of the Court Challenges Program, which had been abolished around 2005 or 2006, even though official language minority communities deemed it essential. I am also aware that there is a reference to the Charter of the French Language in the bill and that there is also a notwithstanding clause in Bill 96. Would you be able to comment on the importance of the Court Challenges Program for your members?
Ms. Ludvig: The Court Challenges Program is very important to all the francophone and anglophone communities; it’s important to keep it.
I’d like to ask Ms. Sandilands if she has anything to add.
Ms. Sandilands: We made some comments about this in our brief, in addition to two recommendations.
Of course, the Court Challenges Program Is now mentioned in Bill C-13 — it’s very important to our community and to francophone minority communities. The program is mentioned, but it’s not mandatory. We recommend making funding for this program mandatory under the act. Secondly, we recommend extending potential funding under this program to matters other than test cases; something broader than the current wording is needed.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
We are at the end of this very enlightening hour. We want to thank you so much for your comments, for your answers and for the importance of the work you are doing in Quebec, and also for recognizing how important it is that the minorities are well protected in the rest of Canada. Sincerely, thank you so much.
We have your briefs. We will make sure they are taken into account when we do our study. As you know, we are in the pre-study process right now, and we expect Bill C-13 as soon as possible.
[Translation]
Thank you very much for your contribution.
(The committee adjourned.)