THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 16, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 6:30 p.m. [ET] to consider 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.
[Translation]
The Chair: 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.
[English]
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 the meeting, honourable senators. I am René Cormier, a senator from New Brunswick and the current Chair of the Standing 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, a member of the steering committee; Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec, also a member of the steering committee; Senator Bernadette Clement from Ontario; Senator Tony Loffreda from Quebec; Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec; Senator Diane Bellemare from Quebec; and Senator Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
[English]
I wish to welcome all of you and viewers across the country who may be watching. I’m taking part of this meeting from within the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
[Translation]
Today, we continue our study of 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. This is a pre‑study of the bill, before it is sent to the Senate by the House of Commons.
[English]
For the first part of our meeting, we welcome representatives from FETCO, which is an association of federally regulated employers in transportation and communication. We welcome the chair, Reno Vaillancourt; and the president and chief executive officer, Mr. Derrick Hynes. FETCO has submitted a written brief to the committee. It was circulated earlier this week.
Gentlemen, welcome to the committee and thank you for being with us. Mr. Vaillancourt, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Reno Vaillancourt, Chair of the Board of Directors, FETCO: Good evening. My name is Reno Vaillancourt, and I am the current chair of the board of directors of the employers’ association known as FETCO, which stands for Federally Regulated Employers – Transportation and Communications.
Joining me this evening is Derrick Hynes, our president and CEO. We are pleased to provide comments on Bill C-13. Our remarks will be brief, but we would be happy to answer any questions that you may have about our presentation.
To start, I’d like to take a few moments to tell you about our association. FETCO is an employers’ association that has existed for over 30 years. Our members are generally large employers in the federal sector, representing more than 500,000 employees. FETCO brings together airlines, railways, marine shippers and telecommunications firms just to name a few. As you can imagine, FETCO is a principal voice of employers within the federally regulated sector.
I should also note that FETCO has a rich history of dialogue with the Government of Canada in the form of a tripartite relationship that includes our partners in the labour movement. That dialogue must be maintained against the backdrop of these changes.
FETCO members support the protection and promotion of Canada’s official languages, both within and outside Quebec, especially in regions with a strong francophone presence. Our members support these concepts both in communications with consumers and also in the workplace. Many FETCO members, those with substantial corporate presence in Quebec, have voluntarily adopted the Quebec Charter of the French Language for their operations within the province.
As I mentioned, FETCO is generally supportive of Bill C-13, which primarily addresses the language obligations of these businesses in order to better protect the French language.
FETCO believes that Bill C-13, as currently written, strikes a reasonable balance of protecting the French language while acknowledging specific challenges faced by many federally regulated employers, many of whom operate across provincial and international borders.
FETCO members see the following strengths in the bill. It will raise the bar on the use of both of Canada’s official languages in the world of work and in communications with consumers. It will promote greater use of French in some workplaces, in regions outside Quebec with a strong francophone presence. It will allow grandfathering, in extraordinary circumstances, especially where English-speaking workers could not practically be expected to become fluent in French. It explicitly lays out the rights of employees, including a complaints process and the requirement of a workplace committee to ensure compliance with the law. It also allows employers who voluntarily subscribe to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language to opt out of all requirements under Bill C-13, which sets out similar requirements for the workplace.
FETCO believes, however, that the bill has some problems that need to be fixed before it comes into force. For instance, the bill gives broad investigative powers to the Commissioner of Official Languages. We believe the scope of these powers should be more clearly articulated, as should the role of the Canada Industrial Relations Board in connection with the powers.
The bill provides a complex and confusing employee complaints process. It is possible that the process will encourage employees to bring complaints in multiple forums in respect of the same or similar issues. FETCO believes the complaint process should be more tightly defined.
In addition, many questions remain unanswered. We will have to wait until the regulations are made to get those answers. For example, how is a region with a strong francophone presence defined? According to the bill, the Governor-in-Council, in defining the term, can take into account any factors deemed appropriate. How many employees of a business must be able to speak French in regions with a strong francophone presence? What criteria are used to determine whether an employee is supervised in French? It isn’t possible to make those determinations at this time. As a result, employers are facing a great deal of uncertainty and, no doubt, significant costs. The government needs to consult employers and maintain the tripartite relationship that already exists. In FETCO’s view, extensive consultations of all parties are necessary to determine what the most appropriate regulatory parameters are.
Even though the bill, in its current iteration, won’t apply to businesses outside Quebec for another two years, businesses need to be brought into the process if they are to incorporate these changes effectively.
Thank you for your time and your consideration. Of course, we are available to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you for your opening remarks, Mr. Vaillancourt.
We will now move into the question and answer portion of the meeting. Honourable senators, please keep in mind that you must use the “raise hand” feature if you wish to speak. We had agreed that everyone would have five minutes for their questions, including the witnesses’ responses. We can proceed that way, if everyone is amenable to that.
Senator Poirier: Thank you to the witnesses for being with us this evening.
My first question pertains to something you say in your brief to the committee. You mentioned it in your presentation as well. The brief says, and I quote: “The bill provides an open-ended and confusing employee complaints process.”
You think the complaints process should be more tightly defined. What would you consider an appropriate employee complaints process that doesn’t cause confusion? Do you have an amendment to the bill that you would recommend to address that?
Mr. Vaillancourt: We could certainly recommend an amendment. One example I can give has to do with the commissioner’s investigative powers. The bill stipulates that the commissioner could, at a certain point, refer the complaint to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, but does not set out the time frame or procedure for doing so. Normally, when a complaint is filed with the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the Canada Labour Code provides for a strict deadline.
If the commissioner is given too much leeway, to what extent and within what time frame could complaints be referred to the board? It’s merely to ensure consistency in how the various pieces of legislation are implemented. An amendment could certainly be made to prescribe the time frames in situations in which the commissioner decides to terminate his or her investigation and refer the matter to an administrative body like the board.
Senator Poirier: My second question has to do with the regulations that will be made following the passage of Bill C-13. One of the things they will do is define an important concept, the number of employees for businesses in a region with a strong francophone presence that are subject to the bill. What should the minimum number of employees be? Should the government set out a broad definition of a region with a strong francophone presence?
Mr. Vaillancourt: I think the definition should be liberal in scope. Does that mean the definition should be overly broad? I am in the camp that believes the definition should be as specific as possible. I think every region can have a different scope, and the same goes for the number of employees in each business. I think the nature of the business’s activities will be a determining factor in the number of employees requirement and the number who will have to speak French.
For example, the number of English-speaking versus French-speaking customers and the number of francophones in a region as a proportion of the region’s total population are considerations. I think those factors could help determine the number of employees for each business. I think the number of employees could be different for each business. That is what makes the consultation process and employer involvement so important. Whether or not an employer is in a region with a strong francophone presence, it could in fact argue that it is at a disadvantage compared with another employer not in an area with a strong francophone presence, since that employer would not have to incur any of the costs associated with complying with the new legislation.
Senator Poirier: Did the government consult you previously, in connection with Bill C-32?
Mr. Vaillancourt: We weren’t specifically involved in the process surrounding Bill C-32, but Derrick Hynes can say more about that because he was more engaged at that level.
[English]
Derrick Hynes, President and Chief Executive Officer, FETCO: There was a panel that was struck to do some analysis before Bill C-32 was introduced, which was the predecessor to Bill C-13. There was some consultation undertaken at that time.
To circle back to your question, which is where I think this comes from, this is what we view as one of the fundamental strengths of this bill, the consultation process that will answer many of these questions. We are glad that it will be done after the bill passes, so that we can have a fully informed conversation with all stakeholders around some of these definitions and how this bill will roll out, particularly in regions outside of Quebec. We do not have answers at this point around what those definitions should be, but we would want to be a full participant in that consultation.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Good evening to the witnesses.
I simply wanted to discuss with you the fact that, for all intents and purposes, two separate regimes exist for federally regulated private businesses, one under the new Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and the other under the Charter of the French Language.
Do you think that entails risks, in terms of implementing or interpreting the provisions?
Mr. Vaillancourt: Thank you for your question, Senator Gagné.
Yes, I do think it entails risks, constitutionally speaking. I do know, however, that employers in Quebec, even federally regulated businesses, have voluntarily complied with the province’s charter. That’s actually one of the big concerns employers have, because they don’t know for sure, but they suspect these constitutional issues could give rise to significant debate. The fear is that employers — like employees, keeping in mind that the purpose is to respect and protect the French language — the ones whose duty it will be to implement the new provisions in the workplace, will, to some extent, be held hostage because of these constitutional debates, which tend to drag on for years.
Everyone knows the economic climate we are operating in right now. We hope all that will change, but constitutional debates like these, which are all but certain, will create a lot of uncertainty in the world of work.
Senator Gagné: Do you think the fact that employers can opt out of the new Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act in Quebec, but not in regions with a strong francophone presence, will create significant challenges?
Mr. Vaillancourt: When I look at the two laws, especially in Quebec, since the Charter of the French Language has no jurisdiction outside Quebec and since our examination is ultimately confined to the world of work — the duties prescribed in Bill C-13 look very much like the obligations currently set out in Bill 96.
Personally, I think there will be changes and, of course, adjustments to make, but employers will have the ability to choose. I think the different levels of government could run into challenges as far as administering the two regimes in Quebec goes, but for employers, once the decision is made, the obligations in both laws are very similar, in my view.
Senator Gagné: Might businesses be tempted to leave the regions to avoid having to comply with the language obligations?
Mr. Vaillancourt: That’s an excellent question, Senator Gagné.
I can’t answer that question because of all the uncertainty around the regulations. I have to tell you, though, that I’m hearing the same fears and concerns you just mentioned. There’s a lot of uncertainty. The situation is very uncertain right now, and, like you, I have heard those things said.
Until the regulations are known, both for the charter and for Bill C-13, it’s hard to imagine that the possibility you raised could come to pass. I like to think that that won’t be the goal, once the bills are passed and implemented. The primary goal is to protect the French language, and I think the necessary steps will be taken to prevent situations like that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is along the same lines as Senator Gagné’s.
This probably stems from my own ignorance, but I thought the provisions in the Charter of the French Language were more conducive to the use of French in businesses than the provisions in Bill C-13. I was thinking about the fact that the language of work in Quebec is French, unless the need to use English can be justified, for a variety of reasons, whereas Bill C-13 makes it possible for people to speak French at work, as per their language of choice.
That was my question. Am I wrong in thinking that? Please correct me if I am. I have another question afterwards.
Mr. Vaillancourt: Thank you for your question, Senator Miville-Dechêne. I’ll share with you my interpretation, based on the analysis we conducted. As I said, we are dealing with the world of work. Is everything that happens outside the world of work subject to more stringent or less stringent conditions? I’m not the right person to answer that. When I look at Bill C-13, my understanding is that it gives employees the right to carry out their work and be supervised in French. Bill 96 does the same thing.
Bill C-13 provides a list of the communications and documents an employee has the right to receive in French from a federally regulated employer, and so does Bill 96. However, I would say that Bill C-13 is more specific than Bill 96 regarding the right to use regularly and widely used work instruments and computer systems in French. With that in mind, I don’t necessarily think that Bill 96 goes further. I think the duty to protect the French language and the right to work in French are equivalent in both bills. Clearly, there are some distinctions, but I’m not able to provide you with a comprehensive analysis. Those are my findings based on my analysis.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course, your conclusions are entirely valid. In light of that, do you foresee an exodus? Do you think that companies under the charter might want to be governed by Bill C-13 or vice versa? What do your members say?
Mr. Vaillancourt: Our members are in limbo. This is a problem we have to deal with. I remind you of a constitutional question, does Quebec have the right to go that far or not? When both laws are in force and there are contradictions between them, which one applies? I think this confusion is causing the level of uncertainty we have at the moment. It’s a mistake to say there is no concern on the part of employers about difficulties with hiring foreign workers. I think that concern exists; I’ve heard it. Unless there are changes or regulations dictate otherwise, I don’t think the exodus could occur at this point in time. Are people going to go elsewhere? Of course, but not just for those reasons. Often when they leave, there are other reasons that come into play, and they use these —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: These pretexts.
Mr. Vaillancourt: Thank you, yes, but I think there will be a degree of uncertainty that both levels of government would do well to clarify as quickly as possible.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you very much for these answers, Mr. Vaillancourt.
Senator Bellemare: I would like to move on to a slightly different area, but one that is related to what we have just discussed: social dialogue. You said in your opening remarks that you are very much in favour of social dialogue within companies to achieve certain objectives. I understand full well that this is very useful in terms of health and safety at work, in training a workforce, and in many other sectors. I’d like to hear your comments on language skills. How do you picture establishing round tables or something else within the company when there are both French-speaking and English-speaking employees?
This is very different from meetings between employers and employees for health and safety at work, which affect everyone. The subject could be divisive. I’d like to hear what you have to say. Can we consider this to be a tool and how do you see it as a means of promoting official languages in the workplace?
Mr. Vaillancourt: Thank you for your question, Senator Bellemare. Indeed, we wonder about communication within the companies themselves, since those under federal jurisdiction often deal with employees from other provinces. We also deal with unions in other provinces and some of them have to comply with these legal requirements and find solutions to the issues you raised. I think that when we maintain dialogue and are able to maintain good relationships, when we continue these conversations with our union partners or even internally or with other levels of government, I think that this will go well because everyone will be subject to the same obligations.
Will there be internal challenges during discussions on different topics when some people around the same table speak English, others speak French and others are bilingual? These issues already exist within companies. Most employers and unions, although I can’t speak on behalf of unions, find good ways to communicate. Simultaneous translation is a tool that we use a lot with employers and trade unions. What is interesting with the pandemic, when you look at different communication tools available to us, is that some offer this simultaneous translation. I haven’t yet tried it personally. Others have, and it’s not perfect, but these tools can be used to facilitate conversations between various stakeholders.
Senator Bellemare: I’ve always been a strong advocate of the importance of workplace training. Do you think that a very strong incentive to offer official language courses to employees, rather than making it mandatory, would promote official languages in the workplace? This came to mind when I heard you speak. One way to promote official languages across Canada would be through skills development in the workplace. It avoids the pitfalls of imposing an obligation in predominantly French‑speaking places.
Mr. Vaillancourt: That’s an excellent point, which immediately brings to mind a situation like that, having experienced it in our operations. When it comes to mandatory courses, to training, especially for languages, the individual must want to learn. In my opinion, it is not far-fetched to think that courses could be offered, but to make them mandatory could create other issues. I think that most companies offer the option and provide many courses in French to facilitate communication between employees, especially employers who have operations outside Quebec and sometimes do business in English.
This training option already exists; it is widely used. I think that making it mandatory would create an additional irritant and do more harm than good.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Dagenais: I am going to move on to financial matters. Could you give us some information or clarification as to what these measures will cost businesses? Who will pay for them?
I remember that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had a bilingualism bonus. You mentioned unions earlier; perhaps some unions will require workers in certain jurisdictions to operate in both languages. So we could ask for a bilingualism bonus. Have you assessed the costs that could result from this? Obviously, this is all hypothetical.
Mr. Vaillancourt: Thank you for the question, Senator Dagenais. I do not have a specific answer to give you about costs because many of them come in the form of employee work time, training and raising awareness. Many of these costs will also be for technological systems to ensure that tools are available in English. A lot of groundwork is needed to fully understand it.
As I mentioned earlier, most companies in compliance with the Quebec Charter of the French Language, for example, already meet the requirements. Costs should be somewhat lower for them. Who should bear these costs? You’re opening the door for me; I would say the government should provide subsidy mechanisms to help us cover them.
In my experience, when there are legislative changes, employers usually foot the bill. Will there be creative ideas such as bilingualism bonuses? I am sure that these kinds of discussions will happen.
However, for the moment, I can tell you that the issue of cost is top of mind. Businesses under federal jurisdiction have gone through a lot of legislative changes in the last 24 or 36 months. They cost employers a lot of time, energy and money. So, when new laws get passed, even if we support them and agree with these concepts, these costs add on to other changes.
Furthermore, in the current pandemic context, when we try to regain control and add already scarce resources to meet new legislative requirements, it becomes limiting.
Senator Dagenais: I’m going to ask about — and you mentioned it earlier — jurisdictional application. The definition is rather difficult to establish, even for us, and probably for entrepreneurs that operate nationally.
Has the government given you a definition and a map of the country to actually outline what is meant by a region with a strong francophone presence? If so, do you find it clear enough to apply? Has the government asked your opinion of these jurisdictions? Do you think that implementation is feasible without clashing with francophones in Canada’s various regions? In other words, where is the greatest predominance of francophones in Canada, apart from Quebec?
Mr. Vaillancourt: I can answer, and then I will give the floor to my colleague, Mr. Hynes.
The simple answer is no. We weren’t consulted on what regions with a strong francophone presence might look like. We want to be consulted, because we want to be part of the discussion. Once these regions are identified, we think it will be much easier to identify employers there. Then, we can engage in a dialogue with employers and unions in these regions and see what would be acceptable. That’s why it is so important to set up and maintain the consultation process we mentioned.
However, for the time being, I must say we will have to wait for regulations to be in place before we can answer this question properly.
Senator Dagenais: You often mention the need for discussion with the government. I’m going to ask you a direct question: When was the last time you communicated with the minister’s office? Were you the one to arrange that meeting, or did the minister approach you?
Mr. Vaillancourt: This was less than two weeks ago. We talk to them quite regularly and in fact we have a great relationship. But is it perfect? Would we like to be consulted more than we are at the moment? Of course we would. Are there legislative changes that have been passed without our being consulted? Absolutely, and that’s the kind of thing we want to avoid. That’s why we insist on consultation.
Both employer and union groups need to be invited to the table, because it becomes much more complicated when these people have not sat down together to discuss things. Unfortunately, too often in the past, legislative changes have been passed without such consultations.
[English]
The Chair: Would you like to add any comments, Mr. Hynes?
Mr. Hynes: Yes. There has not been a lot of consultation on this piece of legislation. That leads us to our statement that we think one of the strengths of this bill is that it does require an extension consultation process around the development of the regulations.
To get back to the point around cost, the big unknown right now is what this will look like and how this will roll out outside the province of Quebec. As Reno pointed out, many of our members in their Quebec-based operations have already voluntarily adopted the charter. Maybe the change will be incremental. We don’t expect there will be widespread changes within our organizations in Quebec.
Outside of Quebec, it is a big unknown. The legislation does require extensive consultation to talk through what it looks like, and we would be very excited to be part of that consultation. The Minister of Official Languages — the current one and the previous one — reached out to us from time to time in the development of this bill, but we were well aware when it was drafted that there would be important further discussions to follow. We want to be a part of that.
Harkening back to the comment from Senator Bellemare earlier, those conversations will happen in a tripartite way, which we fully support, with union partners at the table, to talk through what this will look like, particularly in regions outside Quebec.
The Chair: We are almost at the end. We still have six minutes. I would like Senators Loffreda and Clement to ask their questions. I know Senator Poirier wanted to ask an additional question if there is time. If you can be concise in your questions and answers, that would be great. We appreciate your generosity.
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda: Thank you witnesses for being with us tonight.
Mr. Vaillancourt, you said that your members agreed with Bill C-13. Is the agreement of the business community and your members outside Quebec as strong as that of your members in Quebec? In addition, could you tell us about the risks involved in implementing this bill? You talked about uncertainty and costs. I’d like you to quickly tell us about the mitigating factors regarding those risks.
You made a brief comparison with Bill 96 in Quebec — I spoke about it today in the Senate. Bill 96 is of great concern to the business community. Do you see a similar concern with the bill outside of Quebec?
Mr. Vaillancourt: Thank you for the question, Senator Loffreda.
With respect to the risks for members outside Quebec, it is clear that Bill C-13 causes increased nervousness because they are not used to having to respect the provisions of the Charter of the French Language.
So, indeed, we feel a higher degree of risk at this point. When the regulations are better defined and the concepts of “region with a strong francophone presence,” for example, are clarified, we are hopeful that this concern or uncertainty will diminish.
The mitigating factor, to use your expression, Senator, is really consultation and discussion. There is a two-year time frame that is granted by the act for regions with a strong francophone presence outside Quebec; if we are able, taking into account the time frames, to consult our members and to fully understand the regulations that will come into effect, it should be manageable.
As I mentioned earlier, in terms of the workplace, the requirements of Bill C-13 are, in essence, very similar to those of Bill 96. I believe that the uncertainties we have about Bill 96 in Quebec are the same as those we will see outside Quebec. In my opinion, everything will depend on how the notion of “region with a strong francophone presence” is defined.
The Chair: Thank you for your response. Thank you for your questions, Senator Loffreda.
Senator Clement: Thank you to both witnesses. I want to come back to the question of finances.
We recently had Mr. Yves Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, before the committee. Are you aware of the analysis that Mr. Giroux has done? In my opinion, the financial impact is worth discussing.
There is a lot of talk about the housing crisis and the labour crisis. Do you think Bill C-13 could be problematic in terms of the labour crisis? Could investment be needed from the federal government to counteract that?
Mr. Vaillancourt: Thank you, Senator Clement. In terms of the financial impact, to be very honest, I do not know. Of course, if they are public documents, they are documents that we will refer to. We are curious to see what studies have been done on this.
With regard to the labour crisis that we are experiencing — and all the other crises, inflation, recession, which is the topic of the day, the housing crisis — I think it can indeed have an impact.
You certainly won’t like my answer, but from my understanding of what I’ve read, I think — I hope — that our fears will be alleviated when the regulations are passed.
For example, just on the question of defining what a region with a strong francophone presence is: If we are too strict or too liberal, if we decide on too many regions with a predominantly francophone presence when there may not be that many francophones in those regions, certain obligations under the act apply. I think this could create pressure on the company, because the predominantly French-speaking region will have been poorly defined. However, if the region has been well defined, it means that there is a francophone population in that region that should be sufficient to meet the labour force needs.
That’s why I’m telling you that there are still a lot of pieces missing from the puzzle to be able to really understand the issues. I think it’s legitimate to believe that there will be issues; the magnitude of them has yet to be determined.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Chair: Before we end this part of the meeting, I have a question. In your opinion, what impact will the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act have on Quebec’s anglophone minority communities?
What impact do you think the act will have on businesses located in Quebec?
Mr. Vaillancourt: Honestly, as far as Quebec is concerned, I believe that the impacts will be limited, except for companies that are not subject to the Charter of the French Language. The majority of companies, as I mentioned, are. That’s why I don’t think there will be an impact in Quebec, especially since Bill C-13 will give Quebec the option of favouring one law over the other.
Moreover, as I mentioned, the obligations of the two laws are very similar. So I don’t think this will bring any additional burden.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your answers.
[English]
Thank you to both of you for your presentation and for your clear answers to the questions from our colleagues.
[Translation]
We have completed this part of our meeting. Mr. Hynes, Mr. Vaillancourt, I would like to thank you on behalf of my colleagues.
Colleagues, for this second part of our meeting, we welcome Ms. Liane Roy, President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, and Mr. Alain Dupuis, Executive Director. Welcome to you both. You are regulars on our committee, and we are pleased to have you here this evening to hear your views on Part 2 of Bill C-13, the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act.
We will listen to your comments, thoughts and testimony and then we will move to question period.
Ms. Roy, the floor is yours.
Liane Roy, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Mr. Chair, honourable senators, good evening.
I want to thank you for inviting the FCFA to appear today. I want to emphasize that I am speaking to you from Moncton, New Brunswick, which is part of the unceded territories of the Mi’kmaq people.
Before moving on to the issue of the use of French within federal undertakings, allow me to make a few general remarks about the modernization of the Official Languages Act. As you know, this modernization has been a top priority for the FCFA for five years now. We have put a lot of effort into it.
The reasons why this modernization is urgent were illustrated again last week by the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The infringements of French remain numerous, and the commissioner himself admits that his powers to remedy them are clearly insufficient.
Every day the social cost of not modernizing the Official Languages Act increases. Every day that the act is not structured in such a way as to ensure respect for the status of French as much as that of English, a perception is reinforced that one of our official languages is more normal than the other. It is this anglonormativity that must be addressed.
This introduction allows me to address the subject of federal enterprises. You know as well as I do that two of these companies, Air Canada and CN, have been in the news in recent months. Unfortunately, the impression that emerges from this coverage is the idea that it goes without saying that English is the language of work, even in Quebec.
The root of the problem that Part 2 of Bill C-13 must address, the question it must answer, is this: Should we, in a country like Canada, be able to expect to receive services and work in French in a federal enterprise, regardless of where we are?
For the FCFA, the answer is yes. Making French normal in the public space requires nothing less.
While Part 2 of the bill aims to support French in “regions with a strong francophone presence” outside of Quebec, our proposals to the expert panel, made in April 2021, are based instead on the principle of equity in access to services and the imperative of promoting French across Canada.
In concrete terms, we recommended that the right to receive services and work in French in federally regulated companies be gradually extended across the country. We proposed a three-level approach.
As a first step, all federally regulated private companies should offer automated services in French throughout the country. In addition, the law should recognize a right to access services in person and a right to work in French in Quebec and New Brunswick.
As a second step, access to in-person bilingual services should be extended in designated regions, in accordance with Part IV of the Official Languages Act, as well as the right to work in French in bilingual regions of Ontario where federal public servants already have this right.
Finally, six years after the adoption of the act, in-person services in French and the right to work in French should be recognized in all regions with designated bilingual federal offices.
When we talk about all regions, this does not include all branches. In this respect, our approach is pragmatic. We are not asking for wall-to-wall bilingualism. The right to work and receive services in French could be achieved by designating, for example, a specific office in a given region.
The impact of such a measure will be revolutionary. It will allow young people who have studied in French to continue to use it and will provide them with employment opportunities. It will allow workers to maintain their French language skills. Above all, it will contribute to the normality and legitimacy of the use of French in the public space.
So these are our recommendations for the deployment of the right to work in French in federally regulated enterprises: A holistic approach that combines access to services and the use of French in the workplace.
I would like to take the last few minutes of our time to provide an overview of our proposed amendments to Bill C-13.
The first is to better establish the role of the Treasury Board as the central agency responsible for coordinating the implementation of the entire act. To this end, our amendment request eliminates the concurrent coordinating role of Canadian Heritage.
The second amendment relates to the importance of including strong language provisions in funding transfer agreements, while authorizing the federal government to deal directly with our communities if a province or territory proves unwilling.
The third amendment aims to specify the objective of the francophone immigration policy. This objective must be the restoration of the demographic weight of our communities, clearly and unambiguously.
The fourth amendment modifies the wording of Part VII to refer to “necessary” measures rather than measures that federal institutions consider appropriate.
Finally, although Bill C-13 gives the Commissioner of Official Languages order-making and sanctioning powers, the scope is limited. At a minimum, the commissioner should be able to issue orders regarding the obligations of federal institutions under Part VII.
These amendments will ensure that the Official Languages Act truly becomes a strong, modern and respected law.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions with Mr. Alain Dupuis, Executive Director of the FCFA.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Roy. We’re going to go to question period. We’re going to follow the five-minute time limit for each question, including the answer.
We’ll start with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Thank you to both witnesses for being with us this evening.
My first question concerns the document that you sent concerning Part 2 of Bill C-13, the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act.
The model you proposed concerns federally regulated private businesses outside Quebec. Can you explain to me how you came up with this model and why it is preferable to the one proposed by the government?
Ms. Roy: Thank you for the question, Senator Poirier.
As you have seen, it is a step-by-step approach that will advance French in all provinces and territories in the country. What we are advocating is a model that applies everywhere; we want both languages to be treated equitably and to be in line with what is already being done in federal departments.
We thought it was simpler than starting a new system in other regions.
For us, this model is the result of careful consideration; we wanted to try to find a model that meets the needs of all our communities in all regions of the country.
This does not mean that this model applies everywhere, all the time. As I said in my text, there may be designated places. For example, if we take any bank, we could have a branch in Vancouver that is designated bilingual, where people could be served and work in French. There is a way to accommodate the entire population in our various communities and in the provinces and territories.
Senator Poirier: Do you have any amendments to support your model in Bill C-13? In your opinion, would it be better to simply withdraw Part 2 of Bill C-13, as you suggest?
Ms. Roy: Our amendments concern Part 1 of Bill C-13. We have proposed wording for six amendments in Part 1 of Bill C-13. We are not proposing any specific amendment to Part 2.
Perhaps my colleague Mr. Dupuis would like to add some comments to this answer.
Alain Dupuis, Executive Director, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: The limitation we see in relation to Part 2 of the bill is this idea of a strong francophone presence and the way in which this concept will be defined.
It is clear that the definition will come after consultations and that it will be set out in regulations.
Perhaps it is up to you, honourable senators, to determine whether a change to the wording is necessary; does a strong francophone presence take into account the needs of the francophonie in the Greater Toronto Area, where there are 100,000 francophones who speak French as their first language? Is this a region with a strong francophone presence? In our opinion, that would be enough to justify having branches or offices designated bilingual in certain undertakings to provide services and to allow francophones working in a business to work in their language. In our view, this may not require an amendment to the bill as it stands, or perhaps a better definition of what is meant by a “strong francophone presence” should be provided.
One thing is certain: When we appeared before the committee of experts that was to provide information to Minister Joly on the first version of the bill, we emphasized that there was a great deal of concern about the fact that a series of rights would be created for certain francophones who already live in predominantly francophone regions and that there would be no increase in the use of French in federal undertakings elsewhere in the country. It will really depend on how this strong francophone presence is defined. We think that this definition should be based on the same type of definition and the same type of categorization as for French services within federal departments.
For example, there is a regulation in Part IV that applies to services to the public that stipulates that, starting in 2023, a federal office must be designated bilingual if there is a school located within 25 kilometres of that federal government office.
This means that the office will have to provide services in French. We think that this designation makes sense and is based on where people live. That does not necessarily mean that, in a large city like Vancouver, as Ms. Roy was saying, we will have to ensure that all the offices of a federal business offer services in French or allow employees to work in their language. There are certainly enough francophones in Vancouver to justify offering services and accommodating workers who want to work in their language.
Senator Gagné: Ms. Roy, Mr. Dupuis, welcome to the committee once again.
Mr. Dupuis, you answered a question I had about the definition that should be given to regions with a strong francophone presence. In your opinion, who should be consulted to determine the regulations related to federally regulated private businesses?
Mr. Dupuis: I believe that francophone communities should be consulted, as well as all FCFA member associations that work in the field. The idea is to ensure that it becomes normal for Canadian citizens to ask for service in French, no matter where they live. Currently, our communities tend to say that French is used in minority institutions and in our organizations and that it is sometimes used when dealing with governments. However, very little French is spoken in the public space and in businesses such as banks or transportation companies, for example. There are no expectations, which is a shame, because it means that our language is not alive in the public space. That’s where we are as citizens. If we want to pass French on to the next generation, we would like French to be seen and heard, and for there to be opportunities to work in this language throughout Canada.
French immersion programs, for example, are more popular than ever. However, we hear that after completing their education, young Canadians who have learned French have very few opportunities to speak the language, let alone work in it. Civil society should certainly be consulted, as should the employees who work in these businesses. One can think, among others, of the heads of these businesses and the trade unions. For us, it is important to give a voice to the communities and workers who do not currently enjoy this right and who, one day, I hope, will be able to aspire to work in their language in Canada.
Senator Gagné: Part 2 of the bill talks about the factors for defining the expression “region with a strong francophone presence.” It says that when the government makes a regulation, the Governor in Council may take into account any factors that the Governor in Council considers appropriate, including the number of francophones in a region as a proportion of the region’s total population, and the vitality and specificity of French linguistic minority communities. In your opinion, what does this statement mean?
Ms. Roy: In our opinion, the specificity of francophones should be aimed at francophones who live in a minority situation and, as my colleague just said, who have the right to live in French, to work in French, and to listen to and hear French in public places and spaces. In my opinion, that is what having access to services in French should mean. It means being able to work in one’s language throughout Canada, not just in certain regions.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Welcome to you two, whom I know. I had the opportunity to discuss with you the amendments you are proposing. I therefore understand your request.
However, I want to bring you back to a slightly different subject, which is the many amendments that the Government of Quebec would like to make to this bill. I would like to hear your views on the spirit of these amendments. After all, you represent francophones who do not live in Quebec. In the amendments, the Charter of the French Language comes up very often. It is mentioned many times. The preamble also recognizes that the existence of a francophone majority in a Quebec where the future of French is assured is a legitimate objective and a fundamental premise of the federal official languages regime. The Quebec government seems to be trying to put forward several elements to change this legislation. I would like to know how you react to this fact, because their vision will undoubtedly have an impact on your place in this legislation.
Ms. Roy: Yes. I’m going to speak to the elements that might affect the francophone and Acadian communities outside Quebec and leave it to Quebecers and witnesses from Quebec to answer your question about what specifically affects Quebec.
For us, it is important that communities and people living outside Quebec be heard and be able to live and thrive in French. We did not go into depth in our analysis of the amendments. We are in the process of doing so, since we have only just received them. We have concentrated our energy on working on the wording of the amendments that we would like to see made to Part 1 of Bill C-13. For us, these are the important amendments.
With the amendments that Quebec is proposing, we would be satisfied if we could get what we are recommending in our six amendments. Where things may be more difficult is if we play one off against the other in terms of the results that must be achieved.
As mentioned, what is important for us are the six amendments. We want a central body or agency to be responsible for the implementation of the legislation and for language rights to be included in the language provisions. We do not care whether they are French language provisions or simply language provisions. Above all, the final result must reflect what we recommend and want to see in these amendments.
Alain, would you like to elaborate?
Mr. Dupuis: I will not comment on all of the Quebec government’s proposals. However, some elements require the provinces and territories to have a say in the regulations that could be made under the Official Languages Act. I am talking about regulations that affect the positive measures in Part VII, regulations that relate to the subject you are studying today, the application of a policy on francophone immigration and the review of the act.
We are concerned about some of the elements proposed by the Government of Quebec. We would not want all the provinces to have a say in all the regulations that flow from a federal legislation. We know that the federal government has obligations to francophone minorities. We think it is normal for things to be done in cooperation with the provinces and territories. However, we do not agree that these regulations should be made with conditions that come from the provinces and territories. In some jurisdictions, it is more difficult to obtain services in our language. Very often, the federal government is the only level of government that supports our communities in their social, cultural and economic development.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you for being with us. I am new to the committee and I am filling in for a member who is absent. I therefore do not have the same knowledge of these issues as the colleagues who have already asked you questions.
My question concerns the means of achieving the objectives. Part 2, which we have studied today, talks about ensuring the right to work in French and to be supervised in French. Have you thought about the means that could be taken in parallel with the adoption of a law that grants these rights? Things don’t happen in the blink of an eye. The right to work in French, even in a predominantly French-speaking environment, depends on how one defines it.
If we want these rights to extend everywhere, we also have to think about the means we can use to ensure that the rights we grant can be implemented without creating conflict. Have you thought about this? I would like to hear what you have to say.
Ms. Roy: Thank you, senator. Yes, indeed, that is why we proposed a step-by-step approach. We wanted to remain pragmatic and we were aware of the costs and everything that is required to implement services of this kind. That is why we thought that the first level could deal with the obligation to offer automated services in French in all federally chartered private businesses. These are models that already exist, so they are not very expensive to implement. So, for the first level, we could have the right to work in French in federally chartered private businesses in Quebec and New Brunswick. That already exists. It wasn’t too expensive for the first level.
For the second level, three years after the adoption of the modernized Official Languages Act, we could deal with the obligation to offer services in French in person in regions with designated bilingual federal offices, according to the regulatory criteria in Part IV of the act. These are elements that already exist, but we want to improve them.
Senator Bellemare: These are public businesses; they are not private businesses.
Ms. Roy: No, but there is a model that exists for departments and businesses. There would be an extension of the right to work in French in private businesses with a bilingual charter where federal employees can already work in French, in accordance with Part V of the act, that is, Northern Ontario, Eastern Ontario and the federal capital. We had already thought about this model in stages, which gave us time to implement the different levels of services.
For the third level, it is six years after the adoption of the legislation.
Senator Bellemare: In other words, you are saying, “Let us have a step-by-step plan and let individuals, organizations and businesses choose the means,” without thinking about more specific means of providing training and developing language skills, because that involves all that as well. The idea is to have a step-by-step plan to ensure this right.
Mr. Dupuis: I think it is clear that we are developing something new. The federal government will have to develop a series of tools, promising practices and perhaps a centre of excellence for French in federal undertakings and in areas where French is a minority language.
We cannot simply say that there are new obligations and that the federal government is not involved in the implementation, training and availability of resources to develop support tools. The federal government could very well become a leader and support the private sector in implementing French-language workplaces and services.
Senator Bellemare: I understand better.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to Ms. Roy and Mr. Dupuis for being with us this evening. Do you see a danger in the treatment of linguistic minorities across the country caused by Bill 96, which gives the linguistic minority in Quebec the impression that its rights are being greatly reduced?
Should Bill C-13, which we are studying, apply uniformly to francophone minority communities and to anglophone communities in Quebec? If not, why not?
Ms. Roy: Thank you for the question, senator. Obviously, our mandate requires us to answer questions specifically related to francophone and Acadian communities outside Quebec. When it comes to anglophones or francophones in Quebec, we prefer to let them answer the questions that specifically concern Quebec.
Through Bill 96, we are saying that we want closer ties, and we also want all departments to think about how decisions can affect francophone and Acadian communities outside Quebec. This is new in Bill 96. These are important elements for us.
The preamble talks about closer ties with our communities, which seems desirable for French to develop and have good vitality. As far as questions about everything that will be done in Quebec are concerned, I prefer letting witnesses from Quebec answer.
Senator Loffreda: I would like your opinion. Do you see a danger to minorities across Canada because of Bill 96, or do you think it will have no effect?
Ms. Roy: We appeared on Bill 96, and there are certain aspects of the bill that concern us. I’ll let Alain continue because I’m going to lose my voice.
Mr. Dupuis: Generally speaking, it is certainly important to us that the provinces and territories are committed to supporting their francophone minority. The use of the notwithstanding clause by the provinces and territories concerns us, because we have rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The more this notwithstanding clause is used, the more we see an erosion of the rights not only of linguistic minorities, but of other minority groups in the country. Of course, we stand in solidarity with all minority groups with respect to these fundamental rights.
To achieve substantive equality, must we sometimes do more for French? Yes. French outside Quebec is not sufficiently treated as an official language. It is treated as a minority language among others. Clearly, there is a lot of work to be done to ensure that French-speaking minorities can live in French on a daily basis, and to do that, we sometimes need to do more for French in Canada.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our two witnesses, whom I saw not so long ago. My question is financial. Can you tell us the level of concern that exists in businesses in your region about the new obligations, and do you find that the bill offers sufficient financial guarantees to help businesses implement the new obligations that will result from the adoption of Bill C-13?
Mr. Dupuis: We haven’t heard much about federal enterprises in our regions. Surely there would be costs to implement these new obligations. Should the federal government support businesses in this transition? I think it would be normal for it to do so.
Senator Dagenais: Do you feel that the definition in the bill that speaks of “regions with a strong francophone presence” is clear enough to protect small francophone communities?
As for businesses, will they be able to manage all of this in light of the content of the bill under consideration, which, I remind you, has not yet been adopted? In your opinion, is the definition of “strong francophone presence” clear enough?
Mr. Dupuis: I think the bill is not very clear on what a region with a strong francophone presence is. The government did not necessarily want to define this notion. When we appeared before the expert committee in April 2021, we would have liked the committee’s recommendations to be made public before the bill was tabled.
We are not aware of what the expert committee studied, but they made recommendations to Minister Joly as to what this might mean. I assume that after the legislation is passed there will be another process of regulation of the new measures and we will be called to testify and make representations in relation to all of this.
There is certainly some concern within the francophone and Acadian communities; a francophone who lives in a region where French is doing well will have the right to work in French and receive services, while francophones who live elsewhere in the country will have different rights. This is a source of concern, which is why we are proposing a less territorial model that could be applied wherever there are sufficient francophone populations. This is precisely the model used to designate bilingual federal offices.
There are bilingual federal offices in areas like Alberta and British Columbia, because there is a significant mass of francophones in some cities. So why not rely on an interesting model that ensures more equitable access to services and, above all, the right to work in the language of one’s choice elsewhere in the country? This would be a real gain for French. The only way to ensure that French is a normal language is to be able to speak it everywhere in the country, not just in areas where it is already widely spoken.
Senator Dagenais: I know you do not want to comment too much on Bill 96, despite the fact that you have read it. Is the language legislation in Quebec any clearer than Bill C-13, which we are considering?
Mr. Dupuis: Unfortunately, we did not study the two bills side by side to see which plan was more generous. However, we have heard Minister Petitpas Taylor say that the obligations in her bill are very similar to those in Bill 96. Let governments and lawyers debate what is clearer. For the moment, we have unfortunately not done this analysis.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much.
Senator Clement: Have you taken note of the cost analysis of Bill C-13 that was prepared by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer? Also, I’d like to ask Mr. Dupuis to expand on his comment about centres of excellence or the kind of investment the federal government should be making. If we move forward with Bill C-13, what kind of investment will be required to make this bill a success?
Mr. Dupuis: We have read the report you refer to on the associated costs. It is no surprise to us that there will be additional costs associated with the implementation of a series of new rights within private companies. It is clear that there will be a need for new regulations and that these will have to be monitored. If there are rights, it is that citizens will be able to complain to the Commissioner of Official Languages. The commissioner will have to investigate and a compliance mechanism will be developed.
For us, these costs are normal. If we want to make gains and advance the French language in the private sector, it is logical that costs are indicated in this report. What we find reassuring in the report is that the other measures in Bill C-13 do not seem to be perceived as exaggerated or as huge costs for the federal government. It is really a continuation of what the federal government is already doing for official languages.
With respect to your second question, do you want me to say a little more? I believe that the federal government plays a role in supporting businesses. You can’t put in place a compliance structure and new rights without there being real resources to develop better practices. It took 50 years for the federal government to implement official bilingualism, and still, when you read the commissioner’s reports, you see that there are shortcomings, despite all the resources that have been put in place for language teaching and compliance.
In short, it is clear that we are moving forward with a new stage in the development and promotion of French in this country, and this will require tools and consistent support from the federal government.
I don’t have any particular idea about a centre of excellence, but I think we will have to think about it and especially develop tools if we want these rights to be real and not just have to complain. We must not put everything on the citizens who have rights and who have to file complaints, only to see that in the end, there are no resources to ensure that these rights can be exercised in practice.
Senator Clement: Thank you, Mr. Dupuis.
The Chair: Thank you for your answer. I too will ask a question, and given the time we have left, I will give the last question to the deputy chair, Senator Poirier.
I thank you for your clear answers. I have understood that you do not want to intervene in the jurisdiction of Quebec. However, my question relates to your model. If your model is based on the one in effect in federal institutions, does that mean that in Quebec, employees of private companies under federal jurisdiction should be required to provide services in English or to work in English in certain regions, as is the case in certain federal institutions in Quebec?
Do you understand the meaning of my question? Should there be an equal equation within private companies that are located in Quebec versus those outside of Quebec?
Ms. Roy: Thank you, senator. It is clear that we are truly concerned about advancing French. We have put forward our model, especially for our francophone and Acadian communities. I will let Alain continue.
Mr. Dupuis: I still think that it is up to the stakeholders in Quebec to decide on this. It is clear that in Quebec there is strong public pressure for greater respect for French within federal companies in Quebec. I find it hard to see how anyone would want to go against that. For us, it is clear that we need a model that will advance French towards real equality.
The Chair: I understand that your main concern is to advance French. I thank you for this answer. Senator Poirier, you have the last question.
Senator Poirier: My question relates to one of the proposed amendments, which is to have Treasury Board as the central enforcement agency. Like you, I am of the opinion that the Treasury Board should be the central enforcement agency.
Can you elaborate on why Treasury Board should be the central agency for the application of the Official Languages Act? And in your opinion, is the success of Bill C-13 highly dependent on having Treasury Board as the central agency for the implementation of the changes contained in the bill?
Ms. Roy: Thank you for the question, as this is very important for us. In terms of the implementation of the act, we suggested the Treasury Board, because they already manage parts of it. We recommend that they be responsible for the whole implementation of the act, the whole act.
This would ensure that we really have a central agency for implementation, coordination and accountability in relation to the law. For us, this is indeed a very important aspect of Bill C-13.
The Chair: Unfortunately, that is all the time we have, Senator Bellemare. I thank you. This shows your interest in our committee and the work we do. Unfortunately, I am trying to stay within the time we have for meetings.
Ms. Roy and Mr. Dupuis, I thank you very sincerely once again for your generosity and your answers to all kinds of questions. Thank you for the work you do for Canada’s francophone and Acadian communities. Your contribution to this committee is very important.
Thank you to the senators who agreed to join us this evening. Your questions and comments have also contributed to our thinking. We look forward to the bill moving from the preliminary study stage to the bill stage. Thank you to the interpreters and our administrative staff. Have a good evening.
(The committee adjourned.)