Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading 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.

For years, Canada’s two official language minority communities, francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec, have sought to have the Official Languages Act updated. Bill C-13 modernizes the act and attempts to respond to these minorities’ needs and priorities.

However, these proposed changes are not minor and should not be adopted by us, colleagues, without thorough study. This bill rewrites half a century of official languages policy based on the bedrock principle that the two languages have equal status and rights in law. The clearly stated goal of the new policy is one of substantive equality.

As the Law Society of Ontario summarizes:

In Canada, court decisions at all levels make it clear that both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms** and human rights legislation aim to achieve “substantive” rather than a “formal” equality.

Substantive equality . . . requires “acknowledgment of and response to differences that members of a particular group might experience” in order to be treated equally.

The realities around the risks to French culture and language in Canada are significant. However, the changes in this bill do more than advance substantive equality — they put English-speaking minority communities in my home province at risk.

According to the 2021 census, English is the first official language spoken by over a million Quebecers. Approximately 600,000 live in the Montreal economic region, but there are small communities of English speakers throughout the province. For example, there are over 7,500 Quebecers whose first official language is English in Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine; over 4,800 in the Côte-Nord; over 24,000 in Nord-du-Québec; over 3,300 in Mauricie; and over 5,400 in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. There are also English-speaking Quebecers in Bas-Saint-Laurent, Capitale-Nationale, Chaudière-Appalaches, Estrie, Centre-du-Québec, Montérégie, Laval, Lanaudière, Laurentides, Outaouais and the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean.

The struggles of Quebec’s English-speaking communities are not well known. Fortunately, parliamentary committees have studied these issues twice in recent years. In 2011, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages released a report entitled, The Vitality of Quebec’s English-Speaking Communities: From Myth to Reality. And in 2018, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages released a report entitled, Toward a Real Commitment to the Vitality of Official Language Minority Communities.

Representatives of rural communities told our Official Languages Committee that it is difficult to access government services in English, that many young people leave and do not return and that economic prospects are poor for those who stay. We heard that the only English-language primary school in the Lower St. Lawrence has no gym, no music room and no library, and in some regions, students attending English schools spend as much as three hours a day on school buses.

Yet, as Graham Fraser, who was the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada from 2006 to 2016, told the House committee in their study:

There is . . . a challenge when it comes to recognizing the reality of anglophone communities in Quebec. There is a sort of erroneous historical impression that the anglophone communities of Quebec are made up of rich landowners and are the owners of large corporations who live in Westmount and do not speak French. In fact, the statistics show that outside of Montreal, anglophones in communities all over Quebec are less prosperous and less educated than francophones, and have higher unemployment and poverty levels than francophones. They have exactly the same problems accessing government services in English as do francophone minorities elsewhere.

In 2021, in this context, the Quebec government introduced Bill 96, An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec. Passed in 2022, this bill amended Quebec’s Charter of the French Language. Most significantly, Bill 96 pre‑emptively invoked the “notwithstanding” clause to forestall any Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenges. This enables the Quebec government to override constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms without fear of court challenge.

It was then, in the context of the Quebec Charter of the French Language having been thus amended, that English-speaking Quebecers were disappointed and disturbed to find the Quebec charter itself referenced in the amendments to the Canadian Official Languages Act. The charter is referenced in Bill C-13 not only once but in three places. Most noteworthy is the reference in the bill’s purpose. These references do nothing to strengthen or promote the rights and freedoms of French‑speaking Canadians.

Though the bill references the constitutional provisions that apply to Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick, the Quebec Charter of the French Language is the only piece of provincial legislation mentioned by name. This is a problem because the charter could be further amended by a future Quebec government in ways that are even more harmful to the English-speaking community, yet the reference in our Official Languages Act would remain. This change also creates an asymmetry between the rights of official language minority communities, or OLMCs, within and outside Quebec.

As the Honourable Michel Bastarache, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, told the Senate Official Languages Committee during their most recent pre-study of Bill C-13:

I am personally opposed to a reference to a provincial act in a federal act. I believe that the federal language regime is very different from the provincial regime. The role of the Commissioner of Official Languages is very different from the role of the Office de la langue française. . . .

. . . The Quebec Official Language Act, with respect to languages other than French, is more a statute on non‑discrimination. It is not an act pertaining to the promotion of English, whereas the federal act promotes minority languages.

When the very purpose of each of the acts is not the same or not compatible, I can’t see the point of it. If the government agrees with certain provisions of the Quebec act, it merely needs to adopt those provisions itself.

Furthermore, because Bill C-13 integrates the Quebec Charter of the French Language into the Official Languages Act, it is said to de facto integrate and sanction the pre-emptive use of the “notwithstanding” clause. It is primarily for this reason, honourable colleagues, that this bill must be studied by our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. We must carefully examine the potential ramifications of this novel endorsement.

The government was warned not to take this path. When Canadian Heritage released a reform document entitled English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada in 2021, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, responded:

I . . . share the concerns of Quebec’s English-speaking community that the addition of asymmetrical components to the Act will undermine the equal status of English and French. I therefore strongly recommend that the government focus on substantive equality rather than legislative asymmetry in order to protect OLMCs across Canada and foster the development and vitality of both of Canada’s official languages. This will help my office to intervene, when necessary, to maintain the important balance between our two official languages.

Despite the commissioner’s warning, the reference to the Quebec Charter of the French Language has been included in Bill C-13. It now falls to us in the Senate, colleagues, to study Justice Bastarache’s suggestion to remove the reference to the Quebec Charter of the French Language and instead insert those provisions that officials think should be added to our Canadian Official Languages Act.

Bill C-13 also enacts the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. This new act sets out rights to communicate in French and obtain services in French from federally regulated private businesses and to carry out one’s work and be supervised in French in those businesses. This act will apply first to federally regulated private businesses in Quebec before being extended to those in regions with strong francophone presence.

Federally regulated private businesses include banks, ferries and buses that cross international or provincial borders as well as telecommunications, for example, telephone and internet companies. So, francophones — first in Quebec and then in regions with a strong francophone presence — will have the right to obtain services from and work in French in these businesses.

I note that the definition or quantification of a “strong francophone presence” remains to be defined in the regulations.

Furthermore, the new act states that federally regulated private businesses in Quebec can instead choose to be subject to the Quebec Charter of the French Language. This particular change underscores the asymmetries being introduced in Bill C-13.

Honourable senators, in closing, I urge all of you to consider that the Constitution gives the Senate two distinct tasks. The first is to act as a counterbalance or check for the cabinet and Commons. Our founders recognized the importance of protecting the right to political dissent from possible attacks by a majority embodied in the House of Commons.

The second is to represent the regions of Canada at the federal level. As former Quebec politician and professor Gil Rémillard and co-author Andrew Turner explain in an essay contained in Protecting Canadian Democracy: The Senate You Never Knew:

The Fathers . . . wanted to assign the Senate the important function of ensuring that minorities, originally the Anglophone population of Quebec and Francophone minorities in other provinces, would be represented in the Senate.

It was on this condition — that the Senate would protect the interests of minorities even when the majority in the House did not — that the Canadian bargain was struck. Protecting minorities, including the English-speaking minority in Quebec, is our raison d’être.

Honourable colleagues, this bill can be improved. It can be changed in minor ways that ensure the principle of substantive equality while protecting the rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec. So I therefore ask that we do our jobs and send this bill for study to both the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Thank you.

Would Senator Seidman accept a question?

I certainly would.

Thank you, Senator Seidman. First, I want to congratulate you and thank you for your dedication and commitment to official languages. You have been on the Official Languages Committee for years, and you have done a lot of work. You are dedicated to the anglophone community in Quebec.

Considering that the Official Languages Committee’s mandate is broad and allows it to examine any matter relating to official languages in general — which includes constitutional language rights guaranteed by the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — considering it is mandated to review the application of the Official Languages Act and the application of its regulations, and considering that the Official Languages Committee has paid particular attention to legal and constitutional questions during its pre-study of the bill, don’t you think that this committee is better equipped to exclusively examine this piece of legislation?

Thank you. I’ll just say very briefly I understand why you are asking the question, but I also suggest to you that, for example, we get a budget bill here and we send it to various committees for a reason — because committees have their specialties. They have experts on those committees who can analyze portions of a bill in accordance with those specialties. Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the specialty and expertise to understand those constitutional issues that could be at risk in this bill. So from that point of view, their understanding would be better suited than Official Languages, in my humble opinion.

The time has expired. Are you asking for five more minutes, Senator Seidman?

I suppose if my colleagues want me to, I will ask for five more minutes.

Is leave granted?

It’s a short one. Érik Labelle Eastaugh, François Larocque, Michel Bastarache, Benoît Pelletier, Robert Leckey, Michel Doucet, David Robitaille and Mark Power are all experts who have testified before the Official Languages Committee during its pre-study and provided evidence on legal and constitutional issues surrounding the bill.

Senator, with the expertise on that committee — you know the members of the committee — and considering its capacity to invite experts to look at the amended bill, don’t you now trust that the committee, with all that expertise — and some of the members of that committee being there for many years — is well equipped, better equipped and indeed the best equipped to exclusively examine this piece of legislation?

I recognize the expertise of Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the colleagues who are on that committee, but we have been working on this bill — this act — since 2017. We are well equipped to study it. Can you comment on this?

Thank you. With all due respect to committee members and to you, most honourable chair, who are absolutely devoted and committed to this issue — and I well respect that, believe me, and I respect the expertise of all members on that committee and all the experts who have come before that committee. But I could ask the question: Don’t we feel the same way about all our members of the National Finance Committee? A budget bill doesn’t exclusively go to that committee. It goes to various committees who have the expertise to perhaps see it in a somewhat different light. That would be my answer to you.

I have one other question. In all your years here in the Senate and in all my years here in the Senate, I have never experienced before where the sponsor of the bill and the critic of the bill have been chair and deputy chair of a committee. Have you seen that before? Do you think that’s another reason it should go to the Legal Committee? I’m not questioning the qualification of the committee members. They are very competent as well. But I have never seen that before.

Thank you, senator, for the question. I have been here since 2009, and I cannot recall a situation such as that. And I would never call into disrepute the members of that committee, whether they be chair or deputy chair. They are honourable, and I have total respect for them and their ability to deal with these issues.

I do believe, though, that this bill should go to both of those committees, Legal and Constitutional Affairs as well, because of their ability to analyze the potential constitutional problems in this bill. Thank you.

Just for the record, I am concerned. Sometimes it’s a perception of the conflict as opposed to real conflict that could be a problem. In this case, I think it is.

Is that a question?

No.

Senator Seidman, would you take another question?

Of course.

Thank you for your presentation.

Here is my question. Is there not a big difference between a budget bill that’s referred to different committees to study their part of the issue — each part that’s referred to them — and this particular situation where you would request that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, on which I sit, redo a study that was already done several years ago by the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages?

Thank you for the question. The Official Languages Committee did a pre-study on Bill C-13, that is correct. The bill that returns is somewhat changed, with many more amendments and additional references to the Charte de la langue française. I feel that it is never harmful in a situation of such high-risk to the English-speaking community in Quebec to have a highly expert, very specialized approach to the potential constitutional issue around reference, for the first time in a federal piece of legislation, only to Quebec’s Charte de la langue française.

Senator Seidman, your time has expired. There are two other senators who wanted to ask a question. Are you asking for more time?

No, I can’t. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to 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.

As a lifelong resident of Montreal whose third language is French, I felt personally compelled to say a few words on this bill.

First and foremost, I want to make sure there’s no doubt in people’s minds. I’m very proud to be a Quebecer, proud to speak French, proud to live in a province where French is the common language of the people and the official language. Most of all, I’m proud and honoured to represent Quebec in the Senate. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been born and raised, to have been educated, to have had a career and to have raised a family in Quebec. I’m very grateful for that.

I want my message to be clear: I think protecting and promoting French in Quebec and across Canada is essential. The fact is, francophones are a minority in Canada, and we must do everything in our power to ensure the vitality of the French language.

My comments today have nothing to do with the need to better protect French language rights. On the contrary, I support and endorse the objectives of Bill C-13 and the gains it will provide to francophones as soon as it is passed.

Rather, I very humbly rise to defend another language minority in the country, the one we often forget, the anglophone minority in Quebec.

We all saw what happened in the other place a few weeks ago when the entire House voted in favour of Bill C-13 with one exception: Anthony Housefather, the Member of Parliament for Mount Royal, my neighbouring riding, who in good conscious voted against the bill.

Bill C-13 is a very important bill that will change linguistic rights in Canada. Amendments to the Official Languages Act are long overdue, and I congratulate the Senate’s Official Languages Committee for the comprehensive study it conducted on it a few years ago. I know that the study was very well received across the country.

My remarks today will focus exclusively on the inclusion of Quebec’s Charter of the French language in Bill C-13. Along with many in my community, I am concerned that the bill includes three references to the Charter. I am also a little disheartened that the bill is almost silent on English rights in Quebec, which begs the question: Has the government given up on a fully bilingual country?

I think most of us are quite familiar with the amendments made to the Charter of the French language with the passage of Bill 96 last June at the National Assembly of Quebec. English‑speaking minorities in Quebec felt targeted, and in some ways personally attacked, when the provincial government introduced and adopted that bill which pre-emptively used the “notwithstanding” clause — section 33 — of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Forty years ago, the late Morris Manning, a legal authority in Canada, was also uneasy about the inclusion of the “notwithstanding” clause in our Charter. He said:

If our freedom of conscience and religion can be taken away by a law which operates notwithstanding the Charter, if our rights to life and liberty can be taken not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, what freedom do we have?

Mr. Manning was onto something.

In my assessment, the intention behind the pre-emptive use of the clause is to avoid any challenge by those who would argue that Bill 96 is discriminatory or contrary to the Charter of Rights. As Mr. Housefather explained, this basically deprives Quebecers of their rights to go to court if their Charter rights are violated and to have the court order a remedy. In my humble opinion, if a government pre-emptively uses the clause, they know there is a potential for court challenges.

I understand that section 33 is part of our Charter, and governments have the right to use the “notwithstanding” clause, but I strongly believe using it should be as a last resort. Some of our colleagues in the other place agree. The Attorney General of Canada is not favourable to the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause either. Last fall, when the Ontario government used the clause in a labour dispute, he clearly stated that section 33 of the Charter was meant to be a last word for a legislature, not a first word. He explained that using it pre‑emptively is exceedingly problematic and “completely eviscerates judicial scrutiny.”

His colleague the labour minister also thought the use of the clause on workers was used in a “cavalier manner” and was “an affront to democracy,” as it was only meant to be used “in the most extreme circumstances.” And yet, for whatever reason, the Government of Quebec, using section 33 in Bill 96, did not attract the same level of criticism. Why?

As John Ivison wrote in the National Post:

There is a place for the notwithstanding clause, but it should not be reached for by provincial justice ministers to camouflage the defects in their legislation.

As Russell Copeman, executive director of the Quebec English School Boards Association and a former MNA, said before our Official Languages Committee last fall:

 . . . I don’t think one succeeds in promoting and protecting a language — which one must do in Quebec — by reducing the rights and access to service of the linguistic minority community.

He goes on to explain that this is precisely what Bill 96 did. As he put it:

. . . that’s one of the reasons why many of us feel that the explicit reference to the Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 96, is inappropriate in Bill C-13.

I think it’s wrong — or, at the very least, rare and confusing — for a federal law to include a reference to a provincial law that uses the “notwithstanding” clause. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t speak to the constitutionality of this inclusion. However, I am a legislator — like all of us here in this chamber — and I’m afraid the Liberal government may be establishing a troubling precedent and may be leading us down a slippery slope.

In fact, I would even argue that including the Quebec charter in the federal law is in some respects an endorsement of Bill 96, and some experts agree.

Before the House of Commons committee, attorney Janice Naymark raised a very interesting point about the reference to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13. She suggested that this reference muddied the boundary between federal and provincial jurisdictions. She also said that by incorporating references to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language into the Official Languages Act, the federal government was indirectly supporting Quebec’s Bill 96 and, as such, was implicitly legitimizing it. You won’t be surprised to learn that I’ve been bombarded with email and calls from acquaintances, former colleagues and residents of Montreal who have expressed serious reservations about Bill C-13 since its introduction more than a year ago. I’m following this file closely.

In fact, I even had the opportunity to attend meetings of our Official Languages Committee last fall as it conducted its pre‑study of Bill C-13. When I asked Robert Leckey, Dean at the Faculty of Law at McGill University, to share his views on the inclusion of the Charter of the French Language in the bill, here is what he said:

One of the striking things about Bill C-13 is that it refers to the Charter of the French language. . . . It’s kind of elevating the Charter of the French language by treating it like it’s part of the Constitution, and to me, by the time you are doing that, if you are referring to it in such an approving fashion, I do think you are kind of putting Parliament’s stamp of approval on it.

Professor Leckey is not alone in this opinion. On October 3, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages heard from eminent jurist Michel Bastarache, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Here’s what he said when I suggested that including a reference to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language in the Official Languages Act could be interpreted as indirect support from the federal government. He said, “I am personally opposed to a reference to a provincial act in a federal act.” Then he added the following:

When the very purpose of each of the acts is not the same or not compatible, I can’t see the point of it. If the government agrees with certain provisions of the Quebec act, it merely needs to adopt these provisions itself.

For his part, Benoît Pelletier, Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa, former MNA and Minister responsible for Canadian intergovernmental Affairs, Francophones within Canada and the Reform of Democratic Institutions in the Charest government, said he was, and I quote:

 . . . in favour of some reference to the application of the Charter of the French Language, including in a federal act.

Although his opinion differs from Justice Bastarache’s in this respect, Mr. Pelletier shares Mr. Leckey’s view that the reference to Quebec’s charter in the federal statute gives legitimacy to the provincial statute. If this is indeed the case, I still say that any reference to the provincial act should probably be removed from Bill C-13.

Just yesterday, I received a letter from the English Montreal School Board, or EMSB, reminding that the incorporation by reference of Quebec’s Charter of the French Language in the federal law represents a serious flaw. The EMSB is concerned that federal legislation would be subject to a provincial law and that other provinces could be free to legislate their own restrictions on official language minorities.

Honourable colleagues, how often are we reminded of our role as protectors and defenders of minorities? Senators are here to give a voice to the voiceless, which is why I felt compelled to share with you the legitimate and deep concerns of the English‑speaking minority in Quebec. We are not subjected to electoral constraints and pressures, and we are thus able to examine government legislation with the utmost openness and impartiality.

I have no doubt our Committee on Official Languages will take the necessary time to review Bill C-13 and I hope it will give serious consideration to the issue I raised today. And as Senator Seidman also advocated for in her speech, sending the bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee should be explored. I say this not to delay the passage of the bill — I support the overarching intention of the bill — but I would feel much more comfortable if this legal and constitutional issue was properly and fully reviewed.

The Quebec Community Groups Network, or QCGN, a not‑for-profit organization linking English-language groups across Quebec, is also advocating for this. In a May 15 news release, it renewed its concerns with the law’s incorporation by reference to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, arguing that:

It is in this provincial legislation where we find constraints to English-speaking Quebecers’ rights, and C-13 lends its support to that.

As Marc Garneau, who recently stepped down as my MP, reasoned, to incorporate a provincial law into a federal law “. . . is not logical, and it does not make for clarity.” We have a responsibility to seek that clarity.

I would invite us all to consider what Dean Leckey told us in committee on October 24, 2022, when referring to the inclusion of the “notwithstanding” clause in the Quebec Charter of the French Language. He reminded us that:

. . . the Charter of the French language in its current form . . . involves this sweeping override of all the Charter rights that are amenable to override in the Canadian Charter and all the rights in the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms that you can derogate from. That’s part of what the Charter of the French Language now means and represents.

He challenged all of us in committee: If that’s not what we want to endorse with the passage of Bill C-13 and if we don’t feel right about it, maybe we need to think about those references.

Perhaps it is up to us in the Senate to achieve what the House was unable to do when amendments to remove the references were defeated by the opposition parties. I earnestly implore us to examine these important constitutional issues judiciously, objectively and, as the QCGN puts it, in a “dispassionate manner.”

So far, I have heard no convincing argument as to why the references need to be included in the bill. On the contrary, to avoid any misunderstanding, to ensure clarity and logic and to reduce judicial confusion and complications, it might make more sense to remove the references altogether, which in no way would detract from the bill’s central objectives, even though some advance that their inclusion is completely inoffensive from a judicial point of view.

I remain steadfast in my belief that these references do nothing to promote the rights and freedoms of French-speaking Canadians, either in Quebec or elsewhere. It only harms the largest linguistic minority in the country.

Colleagues, I will close by reiterating my support for official language minority communities across Canada. Most importantly, I want to tell francophones and francophiles in Quebec that I sincerely believe in the need to protect French and that I hope that Bill C-13 will eventually be given Royal Assent. However, I want the bill to be properly studied in committee and for the concerns that I raised today to be thoroughly examined. Thank you.

Would Senator Loffreda take a question?

Yes, of course.

Senator Loffreda, thank you for speaking about the concerns expressed by the anglophone community in Quebec, particularly regarding the inclusion of references to the Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13. My question is fairly simple. Did I understand correctly from your speech that you’re suggesting that the Chair of the Official Languages Committee invite legal experts to clarify concerns regarding the inclusion of the Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13?

At the same time, did I also understand correctly that you’re suggesting that the committee chair, who is also the bill’s sponsor, vacate his seat, which he intends to do, to ensure that there is no appearance of conflict of interest?

Senator Loffreda, your time is up. Are you asking for five more minutes?

Yes.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Thank you for the question. The answer is yes because we are here to analyze the bill. As I used to say in my former life, we’re going to have to live with all this for a very long time. It’s not a matter of days, weeks, or months and that’s why we have to do things right. Either we do this properly or not at all. So I believe this is an option we should look at.

I also agree with Senator Seidman, who’s of the opinion that, in addition to the expertise of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee — as is already done at the National Finance Committee and the Banking Committee — we study several bills, with one committee being ultimately responsible for gathering the opinions of others who have some expertise that your committee may not have.

Honourable senators, I rise briefly to speak to Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada’s official languages. I want to thank all who have spoken before me and contributed to the debate on this important bill.

This legislation is an important milestone in Canada’s long journey toward true equality between speakers of English and French — in law, in fact and in the daily experiences of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The context of our debate about Bill C-13 is, in part, that of a digital age in which English has become the language of globalization, commerce and popular culture. It’s a challenge facing many linguistic communities around the world, but it’s one felt acutely by francophones in Canada — not least by those who live in majority English provinces in our majority English country on this majority English continent.

The context of this debate is also Canada’s long history of hostility and discrimination toward people who speak French, going back to the 18th century when British policy sought overtly to assimilate or expel them. This discrimination persisted after Confederation and well into the latter part of the 20th century when most of us were already of age. One example includes the denial of constitutionally protected minority language education rights in Manitoba, which persisted for almost a century until they were restored by a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1985. One can also cite the shameful abolition of French-language instruction in New Brunswick and in Ontario at the turn of the previous century. There are many other examples.

Colleagues, francophone communities have fought for years to establish institutions and secure basic rights, including the right to education in their own language. In doing so, they’ve had to overcome both the ugliness of prejudice and the bitterness of indifference.

Let me tell you one story — one story can illuminate the stories of so many: In 1966, Micheline Saint-Cyr moved from Hull — now Gatineau — to Toronto with her husband and five children. Were they greeted favourably by their neighbours? No, they were not. This was reported in the Toronto Star, by the way. When they arrived, neighbours threw eggs at them, lit fires in their garage and scrawled graffiti on their home with slurs like “Frogs live here.” Faced with that reception, Micheline didn’t give up, or fold her tent and her family’s; she applied herself. She worked with other francophone parents to establish community institutions, including a French cultural centre and Toronto’s first French public school — l’École secondaire Étienne-Brûlé — which her children attended in spite of the fact that the school regularly received bomb threats.

The bravery and determination of Micheline Saint-Cyr paid off for her community and her family. Today, in Etobicoke, there is a school that bears her name, and, in this building, there’s an office that bears the name of her grandson — my chief of staff — Éric‑Antoine Menard.

Colleagues, the efforts of Micheline Saint-Cyr and so many others have paid off for us here in Canada. Our country’s bilingualism is a tremendous national asset, both domestically and internationally, notably giving us an entry and influence in institutions and parts of the world that would otherwise be largely beyond our grasp. As former Governor General Michaëlle Jean has put it, the French language is “a bridge, a strategic vehicle, a powerful lever, and a tremendous opportunity.”

But the health of Canada’s bilingualism is not something that we can afford to take for granted. That’s why, more than 30 years since the last major reform of the Official Languages Act, Bill C-13 seeks to respond to social and demographic trends affecting our country, and to better affirm Canada’s aspirations in matters of official languages.

Assembling Bill C-13 was a collective effort. In recent years, researchers, minority language communities and various stakeholders collaborated and inspired the content of the legislation, which is designed to protect official language minority populations. Our chamber has played a significant part in that process. From 2017 to 2019, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages undertook an exhaustive study about the prospect of modernizing the act. Then, in a follow-up study, the committee examined a 2021 document entitled English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada, which outlined potential reforms and was tabled by Minister Joly, who was the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages at the time. Bill C-32 was later tabled, but died on the Order Paper. That legislation was then significantly reworked, improved and introduced in its current incarnation last year.

In its pre-study of Bill C-13, the Official Languages Committee held eight meetings, heard from 41 witnesses and received 41 briefs before tabling its report in the chamber late last fall.

Colleagues, Bill C-13 contains key measures to address the decline of French in Canada. It clarifies and strengthens the part of the Official Languages Act designed to promote official languages, and it enhances supports for official language minority communities — all official language minority communities. It also compels federal institutions to improve compliance with their obligations under the act.

The Official Languages Act states that one of its purposes is to, and I quote:

(a) ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions, in particular with respect to their use in parliamentary proceedings, in legislative and other instruments, in the administration of justice, in communicating with or providing services to the public and in carrying out the work of federal institutions;

This paragraph clearly shows that the notion of substantive equality is the norm in language law. According to jurisprudence, this equality stems from section 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges.

The English and French languages benefit from substantive equality of status in Canada. However, to make equality a reality, the government must take positive steps, steps that take into account the vulnerability of the French language and of francophone minorities in Canada and in North America.

The case law, which includes Supreme Court of Canada decisions, has time and again recognized this vulnerability and, on several occasions, stated a need for additional efforts and government action. Bill C-13 addresses this need and takes proactive steps to protect minority-language communities and further the goal of equal status for French and English.

As Érik Eastaugh, Professor of Law at the Université de Moncton, stated in his testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages:

That doesn’t mean that the guiding value isn’t equality. It simply recognizes that equality, in concrete terms, in practical terms on the ground, requires asymmetry in measures adopted by the government, and that’s recognized in all fields.

Let’s talk about the reality on the ground. Now, I would like to speak to you as a Quebec anglophone who grew up and still lives in Quebec, and as a Quebec senator who represents a unique section of the Canadian mosaic made up of Quebec’s anglophone communities.

Now, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, there is no question that English is the predominant language in Canada and, if you will, the lingua franca in much of the world.

At the same time, the English-speaking communities of Quebec have valid concerns and face distinct challenges — concerns and challenges, frankly, that are not obviated by the fact that English is predominant elsewhere in this country.

Fifty years ago, over 13% of Quebecers had English as a mother tongue; today, the number is 7.5%. To be sure, mother tongue is an imperfect barometer. These numbers clearly indicate a significant decline in our communities’ demographic weight. This has been most pronounced outside the Montreal area, where English-community institutions are less robust, English-language services are harder to access and — in some places — dwindling numbers of senior citizens are all that remain of once-thriving anglophone communities.

There are also economic indicators that should give us pause. They were referred to by Senator Seidman. Last year, the Provincial Employment Roundtable found that English-speaking Quebecers had an unemployment rate fully 2% higher than francophones — 8.9% as opposed to 6.9% — and a median income $2,800 lower. These disparities are, again, most notable in rural areas, as well as among young adults and within racialized anglophone communities.

Colleagues, I don’t mention all of this to be alarmist. The sky is not falling on Quebec anglophones. As minority-language communities go, ours is, on the whole, in comparatively good position. It’s always going to be a tricky situation because anglophones and francophones in Quebec are both simultaneously part of a minority and part of a majority. Both communities are used to feeling vulnerable and, frankly, to having our sense of vulnerability questioned, if not sometimes indeed belittled. Still, most of the time, we get along pretty well in Quebec. We enrich each other’s lives every day.

My point is simply that we should be clear-eyed about the real and unique challenges faced by Quebec’s English-speaking communities. However, my expectation, colleagues, is that under the Official Languages Act as amended by Bill C-13, with the support of new funds under the Action Plan for Official Languages, and hopefully with the support of the provincial government, these challenges can and will be addressed.

Honourable senators, Bill C-13 preserves the rights of Quebec’s English-speaking communities; moreover, it contains notable improvements, such as those made to Part VII of the Official Languages Act, which articulates specific commitments to the protection of both English and French minority communities, their rights and their institutions.

This ranges from interpretive clauses instructing the importance of taking into account the English-language minority community in Quebec in section 3(1), protecting the continuum of education; bolstering and clarifying the government’s obligations under the act towards the English-speaking communities and others; protecting the Court Challenges Program, which is a vehicle for the vindication of minority rights in language and would and can benefit the English-speaking community; supporting the institutions of official language minority communities, and those include, of course, those in Quebec and providing new powers as well to the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Moreover, Bill C-13 does not affect the specific rights that the English-speaking community has in Quebec; indeed, this is a constitutional asymmetry that’s built into and reflected in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provides for the protection of language rights of anglophones in Quebec in the administration of justice, before the judiciary and within the National Assembly, including providing for legislative bilingualism in our province. These rights, not enjoyed by most French-speaking minorities outside Quebec, remain fully in effect.

Now, we have heard outside this chamber and, indeed, today, of the concerns raised about the references in the bill to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language. But, colleagues — and here I say this with respect, and I wear my constitutional lawyer’s hat as much as any other — we have to be clear about what these references mean, what they do and what they don’t do. These references are statements of fact. They’re factual references, if you will allow me that phrase. In no way do they incorporate the Quebec charter into Bill C-13.

In legal terms, these are references of fact and observations of fact. They are not, to use legal terms, an incorporation by reference. No, this does not incorporate parts of the Quebec charter into Bill C-13. In no way does that do that, period.

Bill C-13 recognizes the reality that is part of the context within which language rights live and breathe in this country, and the context within which Bill C-13 attempts to modernize and promote the equality of our two official languages. It recognizes the reality that the Charter of the French Language exists as an important element in a province which houses a French-speaking majority. It does not make federal institutions, much less this law, subordinate to the Quebec charter.

As Warren Newman, a senior Justice Department official, said at committee in the other place:

I don’t see that federal services from federal institutions would be in any way compromised by the mere mention of the fact that the Charter of the French Language and other linguistic regimes are matters that the government recognizes as part of the overall context.

Bill C-13’s reference to the Charter of the French Language does not limit communications or services in English to Quebec’s English-speaking communities, because these are governed by sections 16(1) and 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, as I had mentioned already, section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as Part IV of the Official Languages Act.

Bill C-13 also does not limit access to English education as guaranteed by section 23 of the Charter. The references in fact do not endorse the Quebec charter, much less its subsequent invocation of the “notwithstanding” clause.

With the greatest respect, there are no constitutional issues raised by the references to the Quebec charter. They are references of fact and as part of the context within which this bill is meant to live.

As noted by the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, Raymond Théberge, Bill C-13 reflects the different language regimes of our regions, whether it is the Charter of the French Language in Quebec, section 23 of the Manitoba Act or even the constitutional amendment made by the only officially bilingual province, New Brunswick.

Naturally, we can’t speak about our linguistic differences without recognizing the realities and the vulnerabilities of Indigenous languages.

As has been noted over the course of this debate, English and French are, by virtue of our Constitution, Canada’s two official languages. But they are by no means Canada’s only languages, and they are — let’s be frank — languages brought to these lands by colonial powers. Indigenous languages were being spoken here long before anyone from England or France knew that this continent even existed. And for far too long, Canadian governments have not only failed to protect Indigenous languages, but, for much of our history, actively sought to eliminate them.

Finally, in 2019, Parliament adopted the Indigenous Languages Act, which recognizes Indigenous language rights and supports efforts to revitalize Indigenous languages and promote their use. At the same time, Parliament created the Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages, whose mandate is to help promote and protect Indigenous languages and to review complaints made under the Act.

To support these efforts, the government allocated $840 million through 2025-26, with $117.7 million ongoing. Bolstered by these investments, the number of federally funded Indigenous‑language initiatives increased from 301 in 2019-20 to over 1,000 today.

These are positive, albeit initial, steps, with more work under way. The bill currently before us, Bill C-13, is distinctions-based legislation which seeks to protect and promote French and English. Bill C-13 is explicit, stating:

Nothing in this Act abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right . . . with respect to any language other than English or French, including any Indigenous language.

It further states:

Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted in a manner that is inconsistent with the maintenance and enhancement of languages other than English or French, nor with the reclamation, revitalization and strengthening of Indigenous languages.

Colleagues, it is entirely valid for senators to ask questions about how Bill C-13 might impact or interact with Indigenous language rights and with efforts to protect Indigenous languages. I expect that the minister and her officials will be glad to provide answers on this subject at committee and to discuss the government’s consultation process, which I understand included engagement with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council, as well as the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages, among others.

Ultimately, our collective goal must be to have thriving Indigenous-language communities and thriving French- and English-speaking communities in majority and minority settings throughout Canada. The law we passed in 2019 advances the first objective, and Bill C-13 would advance the second.

Colleagues, this bill was an electoral promise the government made in 2021, and it received near-unanimous support in the other place, with 301 MPs in a minority Parliament voting for the bill at third reading. It responds to Quebec’s concerns about protecting its linguistic distinctiveness; it responds to the challenges faced by francophone communities outside Quebec; it respects the historic and constitutional rights of Quebec’s English-speaking communities; and it respects the rights of Indigenous peoples and the good work being done to protect Indigenous languages under the Indigenous Languages Act.

The purpose of this legislation is to preserve and promote the vitality and development of the two major official language communities in Canada.

We must support our official language minority communities, which include Quebec’s anglophones. However, we see the significant fragility of French in the country, and it is for that reason that Bill C-13 supports the substantive equality of English and French in order to protect these communities. All of this fulfills an important duty of the federal government, which is to promote and protect our linguistic duality, our history, our heritage, our culture and our legacy.

When both of Canada’s official language communities are strong and vibrant in minority and majority situations, we all reap the benefits. That’s why I urge senators to support this important bill, which will promote and protect French- and English‑speaking communities across this country.

I thank you for your attention, colleagues.

Thank you for that speech, because it helped bring some clarity for me with respect to why Bill 96 is referenced in the legislation. The explanation I thought was very helpful insofar as the distinction of French in the province of Quebec.

But as a New Brunswicker, I worry about other parts of the country that may not understand Bill 96 and its importance to underscore the importance of the French language in Quebec.

Why would we not stress the importance of English and French across Canada, specifically in a province like New Brunswick where it is the official position of the provincial government that French and English are the languages of New Brunswick? I’m just a little worried that there could be confusion in some parts of Canada that may not have a very noticeable French presence or in other areas of the country where, perhaps, English is more dominant than French.

Thank you for your question. If I understand your question, Senator Quinn, Bill C-13 explicitly refers to the bilingual status of New Brunswick. As I’ve tried to outline in my speech, throughout the whole structure, the DNA of this bill is to promote the substantial equality of both English and French throughout this country, regardless of where folks live.

The reality in this country is that, in areas of provincial jurisdiction, there is a great disparity in the services that are offered, whether in education, government services or, indeed, in the legislature to those who find themselves in a minority language situation. That’s why it was important for the drafters of this bill and the parliamentarians who supported it in the other place that the law reflected the true juridical context within which the lived experience of minority-language communities lives. Those who live in New Brunswick have at least formal equality of status in all respects. Those who live in some provinces have virtually no legal guarantees and certainly not constitutional guarantees. And many who live outside of Quebec would only dream of having the institutions that we in the English-speaking community were able to build over centuries and that still, despite the challenges, serve our community well.

We as legislators have a duty to analyze and study legislation properly, obviously, to make sure that we understand properly what we’re doing. In that regard, I look forward to the committee’s study of Bill C-13.

The law is very clear in its objectives to promote the equality of English and French. It is very clear in the measures it places to enhance what the federal government can do to support English and French across this great country. It is also clear that it does not derogate from rights, whether it’s Indigenous‑language speakers, minority-language speakers or acquired English‑community rights in Quebec.

I wish to ask Senator Gold a question, if he will take one.

Of course.

Thank you, Senator Gold.

I am not a member of the Official Languages Committee. I don’t have the deep knowledge of the bill that my colleagues — who have spoken — have.

I understand what you have said: The reference to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language in the bill is not a political accommodation or a substantive accommodation; it’s a reference to fact and context. So far, I think I interpreted you correctly. I’m not a lawyer — I’m trying to explain it to myself in plain language.

My question is as follows: Does this set a precedent for future legislation to reference a provincial law that applies only to one province within a federal law that applies to all others?

Thank you for the question. I would be surprised if there weren’t examples of this in other federal statutes, but I don’t want to assert that’s the case because I haven’t done that kind of research.

The important point, Senator Omidvar, is that this is, as you correctly point out, simply a factual reference so as to provide the proper context. It has no legal force or effect. Therefore, it is not setting any kind of precedent that has legislative significance. It responds to the unique circumstances that gave rise to this bill, as well as the need to modernize the legislation.

As well, colleagues, it was also a product of a legislative process in the other place that involved not only the government, but also all of the opposition parties that participated, over many years, in the elaboration and drafting of this legislation.

I date myself by quoting Alfred E. Neuman from MAD magazine to say, “What, me worry?”

In my respectful opinion, there is nothing to be concerned about juridically, legally and legislatively here.

I understand; I come from the English-speaking community in Quebec. I have family members who are challenging me on this bill and, indeed, who are involved in public advocacy — taking a position different from the position of the government — and I feel it very well.

I understand what is triggered by the references, but, in fact, the law is clear — and as legislators, we have to be clear. The law preserves and protects English rights in Quebec to the fullest extent that the federal Parliament has jurisdiction to do so. The references are simply to provide the proper context for the linguistic regimes within which minorities have to live, whether it’s in provinces with no official recognition of constitutional bilingualism, as in New Brunswick, or in provinces like Quebec where there is an official language legislated in law through Quebec’s Charter of the French Language.

Senator Gold, would you take a question?

Yes, Senator Seidman.

Thank you. I appreciate your certainty as you stand here very definitively assuring us that there is no issue with the reference to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language. I would like to assure the huge English-speaking community of Quebec, and many others, with such certainty. The way to do that is to have the legal testimony at a committee with those who are skilled enough to ask the right questions of constitutional experts. Would you not find that to be an appropriate way to deal with the uncertainty in the community?

Thank you for the question. I don’t believe that it would be necessary or appropriate — in this case — to send it to another committee in addition to the Official Languages Committee.

There are clearly committee members with expertise who have studied the issues. It is also the case that any senator can participate in those meetings, and, therefore, those with a legal background who have an interest in this can be present either as a senator or as a substitute for members in their group. Equally important, the committee will have the ability to bring those experts to testify.

I am not one to exaggerate; when I say with certainty that these are factual references and do not incorporate, in any respect, the provisions, I speak from a lifetime of experience in law and in legal texts — and that will be the testimony I fully expect to hear before the committee.

I have a question for Senator Gold.

I would like your explanation for this: I’m going through “rapportage” on the committee discussions on the other side. Bill C-13 establishes targets for bringing more francophone immigrants to French-speaking parts of the rest of Canada. Could you tell me how that would work?

Thank you for your important question. Immigration is an important vehicle through which our country grows and develops. Unfortunately, the recent census data shows that there is a very concerning decrease in the use of French outside of Quebec. In order to promote and support those francophone communities, especially outside of Quebec, it is imperative that they receive the benefit of the revitalization that francophone immigration would bring to them.

This has been a policy of the government, quite independent of Bill C-13, for some time. It’s a priority to increase francophone immigration so as to halt the decline of French in the country.

In 2022, the government reached its target of 4.4% of francophone immigrants outside of Quebec, and in that year, Canada welcomed a record number of more than 16,300 francophone immigrants outside of Quebec. In addition, with the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023–2028, the government is planning to invest large sums in new measures in order to promote francophone immigration to Canada.

If this bill receives Royal Assent, as I hope it does soon, these plans will be put into place, measures will be introduced and indicators will be developed to guide the actions of the government. Indeed, these are actions, if I remember correctly, that our Senate committee studied, promoted and called for.

I should add, by the way, that the measures to increase francophone immigration across Canada were also enhanced and strengthened by several amendments in the other place.

That’s a long-winded answer, and I’m not sure I answered your question specifically because some of the measures will have to await the coming into force of this law, as well as the action plans that have been developed, but it’s a commitment of the government.

This is the concern: Without understanding how this might be enforced or put into place, it leaves a lot of questions. If you establish a target for francophone immigration — regardless of the country, or the needs they may or may not be meeting in other parts of the country — how would you establish a target for bringing francophone immigrants into the province of Saskatchewan? How would you decide that? How would you assess that? How would you enforce that?

Thank you for your question. All the provinces and territories welcome, want and need immigrants and a healthy immigration policy in order to flourish, develop and grow. In that regard, I have every confidence that the Government of Canada will work with interested governments and territorial and provincial governments to better understand their particular needs, whether it’s economic or other indicators that would best suit their needs. It will also take into account the needs of those French-speaking communities, for example, in your province and elsewhere, who will also play an important role in identifying their needs and identifying how they can assist in the integration of immigrants once they arrive.

This is not a question of enforcing. It’s a question of encouraging and using the government’s jurisdiction over immigration to make sure that its immigration policy reflects the needs of this country, and not only the economic needs of a particular region or province but also the demographic needs of the minority communities and the French-speaking communities that live outside of Quebec.

Would Senator Gold take a question?

Absolutely.

Thank you very much, Senator Gold.

This is a very emotional topic for me, but I believe that you will understand that Innu-aimun is also an official language in my heart. My other half, my Quebec half, reminds me that it is important to also protect French throughout Canada.

It is my Innu half that will ask you a question, Senator Gold.

Quebec has nations, chiefs and also the First Nations Education Council, which has 22 First Nation member communities. They are currently suing over the Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec, and have filed an application for judicial review to defend their position on the act. This will have direct consequences for education in our schools and our communities. I would like you to comment on the following scenario, as it frightens me. I am not a legal expert, but when I see a bill that becomes law and that specifically mentions a provincial charter or law, I wonder if that government can say, “Now, the federal government gives you full recognition, so I’m sorry, but you are covered by the Official Languages Act, and one of those languages is French.” I am speaking on behalf of Quebec’s First Peoples.

Thank you for the question.

I fully understand the concerns, not only of your community, but also of Indigenous communities in Quebec and elsewhere.

The short answer is no. A government can say anything it likes, but that is absolutely not the case when it comes to legal facts.

The reference has no bearing on the process under way in Quebec and, more broadly, on the application of the Charter of the French language in Quebec. It is solely a matter of provincial jurisdiction and Bill C-13 respects that. I can add — and no doubt this issue will be addressed in committee — that there are a lot of measures in this case that seek to encourage and support Indigenous communities in their efforts to ensure they have the opportunity and the ability to work in their language, to be supervised in their language and to be protected by the changes brought about by Bill C-13, for example, within the context of their existing employment in the public service.

Thank you for the question. In my opinion, the answer is simple and straightforward.

Senator Audette, do you have a supplementary question?

Yes.

You know, before joining the Senate, I observed everyone in this chamber with a great deal of passion. There is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Many of you wondered whether this bill met the test of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. If not, how can we ensure that a commissioner of Indigenous languages can also collaborate with the Commissioner of Official Languages so that, in certain provinces, the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages also has some power? I know that we are talking about Bill C-13, but I would have liked to see some parallels or important relationships. I imagine we will be able to discuss it as part of this study. As a jurist, you mentioned it, and you may have some advice to give us.

Thank you for the question. I understand very well, in a diverse country like ours, how important it is for all the institutions that share similar objectives to communicate with each other and for collaboration to be established as needed and where appropriate.

Having said that, I would like to emphasize that the raison d’être of Bill C-13 is the two official languages and their legal status in Canada.

As I’ve already mentioned, there were consultations, but I don’t want to claim that this was done within the framework of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It’s a bill that deals with other matters, notwithstanding the fact that it respectfully recognizes the acquired and constitutional rights of Indigenous peoples.

The other component I talked about in my bill on Indigenous languages relates to the commissioners and all the resources that will be brought in — This is another vital and important bill that’s still in its early stages, meaning that it isn’t quite ready yet. Some projects do exist, and there have been some successes. There’s still a lot of work to be done. We hope all this will continue and even progress a little more quickly, but we have to distinguish between the two camps. A patchwork of measures will do neither Bill C-13 nor the Indigenous languages bill any good.

In the briefing note on Bill C-13 submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, the Barreau du Québec stated this:

It has been suggested that amendments to the Supreme Court Act or the Official Languages Act could affect the notion of “composition of the Court” as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, further to Justice Nadon’s appointment. Thus, the addition of a bilingualism requirement to any of these statutes would, in their view, have to go through the constitutional amendment process (seven Canadian provinces with at least 50% of the population).

While we do not take a position on this constitutional issue, we would like to emphasize that it deserves particular attention to ensure that any amendments requiring bilingualism of Supreme Court judges are successful, not counterproductive.

I also note that in my home province of Saskatchewan, the last Supreme Court justice that was appointed from Saskatchewan was Emmett Hall in the 1960s, before I was born. He served until 1973. Given the low rate of bilingualism in Saskatchewan, we want to ensure that we have the best jurists on the Supreme Court of Canada. We need to assess that.

With those important issues to consider, why shouldn’t this bill be studied at our Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs?

Thank you for raising the issue of the court because I think it will also give me an opportunity to correct what I think is a slight misunderstanding of the provisions of this bill as it applies to the court.

To answer your question directly, no, I don’t believe that the issues that you have raised justify sending it to the Legal Committee, and I’ll explain why.

With respect to the judiciary, the provisions of this bill remove an exemption that existed for the Supreme Court of Canada that was placed in the original act and, at the time, was thought to be “temporary,” absolving the court as an institution from the same requirements that other superior courts had. That is, to give effect to the constitutionally protected rights of litigants to be heard and understood in the language of their choice without the aid of an interpreter. What is perhaps not understood — and I apologize, Senator Batters, if I’m putting words in your mouth, or others; I don’t mean to. But this does not mean that every judge appointed to the Supreme Court or any other Supreme Court must be bilingual, fluent or otherwise. That is not what the legislation requires. It is an institutional obligation on the court as an institution that when it hears cases, the litigants before the court must be ensured that they are able to address the court and be understood without the benefit of an interpreter.

I’ll give an example. It happens, happily, that the Supreme Court of Canada in today’s composition has nine judges — three from Quebec, three from Ontario, as is our practice, custom and law — who are all functionally bilingual, but it is not actually a requirement and wouldn’t be a requirement. It would be a requirement that the panel of judges who hears a case be a panel that is able to hear and understand testimony, whether in English or French, without the benefit of an interpreter. For example, the quorum for a case at the Supreme Court of Canada, as you know, is five. There is nothing in Bill C-13 that requires that every future judge, where it’s the Supreme Court or of any superior court — because those provisions have been in place for some long time — must be fluently bilingual. It is conceivable that a Supreme Court judge may be appointed if they only speak French and perhaps an Indigenous language. Although I don’t think there has been a unilingual French judge on the Supreme Court since Confederation, there have certainly been unilingual English judges. But that is not precluded by this so long as the court, as an institution, when it structures its panels — which is typically under the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice — has the ability to satisfy the institutional obligation that is now imposed upon the Supreme Court from which it had been exempted temporarily under the Official Languages Act of 30 years ago.

As such, then, Senator Gold, would you please ask the Justice Minister, Minister Lametti, to provide us with that confirmation that it is not a requirement of Bill C-13 that Supreme Court justices must be bilingual?

I’m sure this question will and can be both asked and answered at committee, but it is clearly in the law. Again, as I have noted, the provisions here that remove the exemption have been in place for federally appointed judges for decades and it is certainly not the case that all federally appointed judges have had to have been bilingual. It wasn’t like that in the past, nor will it be in the future, whether for the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario or Supreme Court of Canada.

Honourable senators, in any country, language — or languages, plural, in Canada — is the essence of our cultural expression, identity and strength.

In rising today to speak to Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, I want to immediately recognize the important role that our two official languages, English and French, play in our country. I hope that this debate will continue to be constructive and calm, anchored in a sound understanding of the scope of the bill, the evolution of Canada’s demolinguistic situation and the need to act.

I won’t revisit the historical evolution of our language rights today, as Senator Cormier, the bill’s sponsor, skilfully walked us through that in his speech at second reading. He outlined the benefits this law brings to the country and, in particular, to its minority language communities. He also demonstrated the need for the reform proposed today in Bill C-13.

Let’s be clear about the scope of this bill. Bill C-13 seeks to promote and protect the French language, require bilingualism in federally regulated private businesses, support minority language communities and their institutions, both anglophone and francophone, all while recognizing the reality of Canada’s current linguistic dynamics.

Why is this reform necessary? The reality that can’t be ignored is that the French language is in decline throughout Canada. That is the unequivocal finding of the 2021 census. Across the country, French as the first official language spoken fell from 22.3% during the 2016 census to 21.4% in the 2021 census. The same trend can be observed in Quebec, the only majority francophone province, where French as the first language dropped from 83.7% in 2016 to 82.2% in 2021. By comparison, the use of English has increased steadily, rising from 74.8% to 75.5% of the total population of Canada between 2016 and today.

This is not a new phenomenon, but it confirms that the decline in the number of francophones in Canada is accelerating. This decline is hitting the Quebec nation and francophone communities outside Quebec particularly hard. Let’s face facts. Quebecers, but also Acadians and other francophones from New Brunswick, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and everywhere else, in short, all francophone communities in our country are negatively affected by this linguistic and demographic dynamic.

What solutions does Bill C-13 offer? Bill C-13 acknowledges this reality and promotes substantive equality of the two official languages. To achieve that, it proposes a tailored approach that is described as asymmetrical on many levels to promote and protect our two official languages, English and French, and it also pays particular attention to official language minority communities.

It is very important to clarify the situation. Treating the two official languages asymmetrically does not create injustice. Treating them symmetrically does. Given the situation we are in today and the data on the decline of the French language, it would be unfair and even inconsistent to pretend otherwise.

The principle of linguistic vulnerability is deeply rooted in the jurisprudence of our highest court. In Ford and Nguyen, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote, and I quote:

 . . . the general objective of protecting the French language is a legitimate one within the meaning of Oakes in view of the unique linguistic and cultural situation of the province of Quebec:

[T]he material amply establishes the importance of the legislative purpose reflected in the Charter of the French Language and that it is a response to a substantial and pressing need. . . . The vulnerable position of the French language in Quebec and Canada . . . .

The Supreme Court used a report from the Office québécois de la langue française on linguistic evolution to help justify its decision in Nguyen. That report states, and I quote:

In both the Canadian and North American contexts, French and English do not carry the same weight and are not subject to the same constraints in respect of the future. The durability of English in Canada and in North America is all but assured. That of French in Quebec, and particularly in the Montréal area, still depends to a large extent on its relationship with English and remains contingent upon various factors such as fecundity, the aging of the population, inter- and intraprovincial migration and language substitution.

The federal government’s decision to propose an asymmetrical approach to promoting and preserving our official languages in Bill C-13 is based on a solid factual and legal foundation.

It is also necessary to assert that an asymmetrical approach in favour of French is not synonymous with a loss of rights for English-speaking citizens, particularly minority anglophones in Quebec, whose situation is very dear to my heart. English‑speaking Quebecers will absolutely retain their rights under the Canadian and Quebec Charters. I could not tolerate my fellow English-speaking Quebecers having their rights endangered or infringed, but this is simply not the case.

Bill C-13 is, in fact, beneficial for the English-speaking minority in Quebec because it includes commitments to linguistic minorities such as advancing formal, non-formal and informal opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives, including from early childhood to post-secondary education.

Furthermore, it should be remembered that Quebec — which is the most bilingual province in Canada because actually 44.5% of Quebecers are bilingual in French and English — offers fundamental rights and protections to its English-speaking communities in its own legislation. Our colleague Senator Dagenais eloquently referred to these protections. Those rights and privileges relate to education, administrative services, health services and others. The community also counts on strong and healthy institutions such as bilingual municipalities, hospitals and universities.

I think it is important to be reminded that Bill C-13 has no impact on those rights provided for in the Quebec charter and by the Quebec government, and that a debate on our Official Languages Act is not the place to discuss topics pertaining to Quebec politics or Quebec’s concept of living together.

Why is Bill C-13 such a historic bill? Bill C-13 is truly a historic realization because it comes from true collaboration between numerous stakeholders, including the federal government, the Quebec government and the representatives of linguistic minorities all around the country. All these actors came together in recognition for the need to reform the Official Languages Act. This bill is eagerly awaited all around the country and was adopted with quasi unanimity in the other place, a great achievement in itself.

As a senator from Quebec, I am happy to have witnessed such a great collaboration between the federal government and the Quebec government. Agreements between the two have sometimes been difficult to reach, to say the least, particularly when it comes to linguistic issues, but I am glad to have seen the two working toward a common objective, the promotion and protection of French all around Canada, an ideal in which I’m happy to see the Quebec government being a proactive actor.

This agreement is reflected in the amendments proposed at committee to clauses 54, 57 to 59 and 71 of the bill, relating to federally regulated private businesses, which is the focus, the main scope of this bill.

Bill C-13 will bring a new standard for those federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and in francophone areas, ensuring that those businesses respect both the rights of Quebecers to work in the official language of Quebec and the rights of French minorities to receive services in their native tongue, which is not actually the case. Today, the report tabled by the federal Commissioner of Official Languages is very probing with regard to this situation and this unfairness for francophones.

All of this is done without infringing on the rights of anglophones. Essentially, Bill C-13 recognizes that the federally regulated private sector has a role to play in order to promote and protect French.

Bill C-13 is far from being Quebec-centric but focuses, and rightly so, on French-speaking communities outside of Quebec. It will ensure that consumers can communicate with federally regulated private businesses in French and provide language‑of‑work rights for francophone employees all around Canada.

The bill, as I have said, specifically includes a commitment to support the vitality of official language minority communities, that is, francophone communities outside of Quebec and English‑speaking communities in Quebec.

What about Indigenous languages? Obviously, I recognize the need for protection and promotion of Indigenous languages and the rights of the Indigenous peoples who speak them. Having said that, I don’t believe the reform of the Official Languages Act proposed in Bill C-13 is the right avenue to address this issue. Promoting French doesn’t impede on the application of Indigenous languages or the rights of Indigenous communities to use them. Both can be done simultaneously. They are not mutually exclusive.

In 2019, we at the Senate passed the Indigenous Languages Act. This is what I believe to be the efficient and appropriate legal instrument to consider in regard to Indigenous languages. If reform is needed, and improvements are requested, the solution would be to work through this law again to further protect and promote Indigenous languages. As such, you will find in me an ally in the Senate.

Why is a bilingual country worth fighting for? I began my intervention by saying that bilingualism was fundamental for Canada’s culture and its identity. I believe it unequivocally. It is not only important within Canada; it’s also one of our main attributes on the international level. Our languages open doors for us everywhere we go. Thanks to the English language and our historical ties to Britain, we are members of the Commonwealth, where we exchange and promote our interests with 55 other countries and nations. Thanks to our French heritage, we are also members of the Francophonie with its 54 members, 7 associate members and 27 observers.

Those ties are essential for Canada. Each one of our two official languages allows us to exchange, trade, connect, share our culture and develop strong diplomatic ties. It also helps to attract immigrants, workers and students. It truly distinguishes us worldwide.

In conclusion, as you can see, I fully support the principle of Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, and I urge you to refer it to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages as soon as possible. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the members of that committee for their excellent and intensive work on the pre‑study of the bill and the report they produced.

I will also answer a question a senator asked earlier about a committee chair sponsoring a bill. I can confirm that the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, with his trademark ethical sensitivity, has asked to step down from chairing that committee and has ensured that another senator will assume that position. The senator who asked that question also asked whether we knew of a situation where the sponsor of a bill was also the chair of the committee. I will reply by citing a recent event. The Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications and sponsor of Bill C-11 chaired the meetings where that committee studied that bill.

I am sure that when the members of the Official Languages Committee analyze this bill, they will put in the same high‑quality work on all the important aspects of the bill. Honourable colleagues, in conclusion, the changing demographics of our country point to an unequivocal decline in French. Bill C-13 is the fruit of a delicate collaboration, and it is necessary to ensure the equitable development of both of our official languages. It seeks to achieve equality and equity in the linguistic dynamic of our official languages. In this case, equality means that Canadians can be served by the federal government in the official language of their choice, regardless of what province they live in.

Francophones need this bill, but ultimately, Canada as a whole will benefit.

Thank you. Meegwetch.