Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages Bill
Bill to Amend--Second Reading--Debate Adjourned
May 18, 2023
Moved 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.
He said: Honourable senators, I would first like to point out that the lands on which we are gathered and where I am speaking to you today are part of the unceded traditional territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people.
Esteemed colleagues, we live in a Canada that is proud of its cultural diversity and enriched by its linguistic diversity, and it is a real privilege for me to speak today in my capacity as sponsor 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.
In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada stated the following in Ford v. Quebec:
Language is not merely a means or medium of expression; it colours the content and meaning of expression. . . . It is also the means by which one expresses one’s personal identity and sense of individuality.
It is with those words in mind that I rise today to speak to this important bill for the future of language rights in our country.
Colleagues, we have before us a pivotal piece of legislation. Bill C-13 modernizes Canada’s official languages regime. As a member of an official language minority community, I am particularly honoured to sponsor this bill and see to the final stages of its study and its eventual adoption into law.
The fact of the matter is that the Official Languages Act has had many positive effects on our lives and the lives of our families and our francophone, francophile and anglophone communities. This legislation helped turn Canada into the country it is today, and it is a pillar of our parliamentary democracy.
Its positive effects are still being felt by francophone families coast to coast to coast, whether they live in Acadia, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Yukon or Nunavut, and by English- and French‑speaking families in Quebec.
As minorities, Canadian official language communities are shaped by the dynamics of resilience, resistance, alliance and inclusion. We all win, honourable colleagues, when we have equal access to both official languages. Having two official common languages in Canada enhances the vitality of our communities and strengthens relations between all Canadians. The Official Languages Act holds an important place in Canada’s political, social and constitutional landscape.
Many of us have witnessed the evolution of official language rights since the passage of the first act in 1969. Our two official languages have been an integral part of Canada’s history since its founding, but they were strengthened by the adoption of the first Official Languages Act.
You will recall that all this began in 1963, when the Government of Canada created the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. This commission conducted a review of the state of bilingualism in Canada to address the concerns expressed by francophones, particularly about the inequality they experienced within the federal government.
It was further to the recommendations of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission that the first Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969, making English and French the two official languages of Canada. This was a watershed moment in the history of our country. The resulting linguistic duality would now shape important parts of the country’s image and culture, one that is integral to how most Canadians recognize themselves today.
As a result of the act, the federal government now had an obligation to better communicate with Canadians and provide them services in both official languages. In addition, the act put in place obligations that promoted access to justice in both official languages and formalized the use of the two official languages in parliamentary proceedings.
Since then, Canada’s linguistic landscape has continued to evolve, particularly as provincial and territorial governments have taken part in the evolution of these language rights. For example, in 1969, New Brunswick officially declared itself a bilingual province. In fact, it is still the only province that proudly holds that status, though it hasn’t come without challenges, I have to admit.
In the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, not only are English and French recognized as official languages, but Indigenous languages are as well.
In 1977, the Government of Quebec passed the Charter of the French Language. In 1985, Manitoba took the necessary steps to meet its constitutional obligation with respect to legislative bilingualism, and in 1986, Ontario passed the French Language Services Act, which recognizes the right to use French in the legislature, requires that laws be passed in both languages and guarantees the right to receive provincial services in French in certain regions.
Indeed, since the Official Languages Act was first adopted, the three territories and all provinces have adopted statutes, policies and programs that guarantee services in French or that recognize the contribution of their official language minority communities.
Significantly, there was also the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, among other gains, guaranteed the right to minority language education, a right that is crucial for the vitality and flourishing of English and French minority communities.
In 1988, an amended Official Languages Act was adopted. In addition to preserving the achievements of 1969, this version guaranteed the right to work in the official language of one’s choice in federal institutions under certain conditions. In addition, the act now contained a new part, Part VII, which featured a new commitment by the Government of Canada to advance English and French in Canadian society.
The act also contained a new commitment to support the vitality of official language minority communities — that is, francophone communities outside Quebec and English-speaking communities in Quebec.
The Official Languages Act was amended again in 2005 on the initiative of Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, whose memory I salute. The objective was to strengthen Part VII of the act by adding the obligation for federal institutions to take positive measures to implement the government’s commitment and to make Part VII justiciable if the commitment to take positive measures was not fulfilled.
That being said, the Official Languages Act has not been reviewed or amended since 2005. Canadians agree that a review is needed. What’s more, over the years, the jurisprudence on language rights has become clearer. All of these legislative components represent the foundation of our language regime.
It is also through the implementation of administrative measures, regulations and programs that the Government of Canada ensures that its national vision is put into action.
Honourable senators, as we look back on the evolution of Canada’s language regime, let’s recognize today that Canada’s official languages are at the heart of our history, our culture, our values, our identity and our social contract, and that the time has come to modernize this regime for the benefit of all Canadians, both today and for generations to come.
Why is it so important to modernize our Official Languages Act now? Because we should never lose sight of the fact that the act is among the reasons why our two official languages are spoken and celebrated across Canada today. We can take pride in our official languages; in our language regime, which includes Indigenous languages; and in the resilience, the endurance and the strength of conviction our two official language minority communities have shown over the years.
The act has ushered in significant changes in Canadian society. Indeed, the rate of bilingualism in Canada has increased by 50% since the adoption of the original Official Languages Act.
Now, 30-plus years since the last major update, the Official Languages Act is overdue for modernization, and such modernization is necessary to ensure that the act keeps pace with a society in evolution, one marked by technological, social and demographic realities that did not exist in 1988.
The bill before us is the reflection of a comprehensive consultation process. The bill introduced by the Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is part of a progressive history that evolved in step with Canadians’ expectations.
Despite the progress made since 1969 at the federal, provincial and territorial levels, the fact remains that we need to act swiftly in modernizing Canada’s official languages regime, because the recent census caused a state of emergency by highlighting the significant decline in the number of bilingual Canadians who are able to express themselves, live and work in both official languages.
The bill is the result of consultations with stakeholders across the country, a process that began in 2019. Numerous stakeholders have engaged in this national conversation. Parliamentary committees, the Commissioner of Official Languages, community organizations, researchers, professional associations and unions have all submitted briefs and research reports. Let us not forget the provinces and territories that have shared their respective visions, positions and aspirations when consulted.
We should also remember that our Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages had already proposed changes to the act in 2019 in its final report, entitled Modernizing the Official Languages Act: The Views of Federal Institutions and Recommendations, and provided important guidance during its pre-study of Bill C-13, which was effectively considered in the version before us. Colleagues, we should take pride in this important contribution to the national conversation from our committee and the Senate.
I wholeheartedly recognize and appreciate the vital work our newly appointed Speaker of the Senate has contributed to our studies on this important matter.
I’ll set aside my text for a moment, colleagues, to congratulate and thank our new Speaker, the Honourable Raymonde Gagné. Thoroughness, commitment, collaboration, goodwill and determination are all words that come to mind when I think of her contribution to the study of this bill and to official languages in general. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Senator Gagné, for your valuable contribution. The Franco-Manitoban community, the Canadian francophonie and all of Canada can be proud of you. Thank you.
No one can deny our country has undergone a considerable transformation in the last 30 years, an even greater one since the first Official Languages Act was passed over 50 years ago. Modernization, therefore, not only addresses today’s challenges but anticipates the challenges we will face in official languages tomorrow.
The bill reflects the vision set out in the reform document released by the Government of Canada in February 2021. This vision was articulated around six guiding principles, and I think it is important to present them clearly, since they form the basis of the new version of Bill C-13.
The first guiding principle is the recognition of linguistic dynamics in the provinces and territories and existing rights regarding Indigenous languages.
This guiding principle stems from the fact that linguistic realities vary considerably from one region of the country to another. This is also true for provincial and territorial language regimes. All provinces and the three territories have adopted legislation, policies or programs to guarantee that they offer services in French or to recognize the contribution of their official language minority communities.
There are a variety of provincial and territorial language regimes that the Government of Canada takes into account in the framework of its support for official languages. There are also key areas of intervention where powers are exclusive or shared between the different levels of government, such as education, health, culture, immigration and justice.
Pursuant to this guiding principle, the government says it wants to work with Indigenous peoples to protect, promote and enhance Indigenous languages. This bill does mention that. It includes a clause clarifying that nothing in the Official Languages Act abrogates or derogates from any rights or the maintenance and enhancement of other languages, and it explicitly mentions the reclamation, revitalization and strengthening of Indigenous languages.
The second guiding principle of the Official Languages Act reform calls for providing opportunities to learn both official languages.
Canadians have a positive view on bilingualism, and most of them recognize its benefits. However, despite the efforts and expressions of interest of families who want to see their children enrolled in immersion programs, the 2021 census has sounded the alarm. The bilingualism rate among English speakers outside of Quebec is stagnant.
The current government has supported second language learning for years through agreements with the provinces and territories. That said, it wants to go further and has explicitly recognized its commitment to encouraging access to official language learning in this bill.
The third guiding principle of the reform is support for the institutions of official language minority communities.
Without minority language institutions and services, there are no public spaces in which official language minority communities can live in their language and achieve their full potential. The Government of Canada proposes that the modernized act promote the development of the full potential of these communities by supporting the vitality of institutions in key sectors.
The government must also provide essential tools for the defence of language rights, in particular by protecting access to the Court Challenges Program, explicitly recognizing that programs aimed at early childhood development form an integral part of the educational continuum, and establishing a strengthened immigration policy that contributes to achieving official languages objectives.
The fourth guiding principle is the protection and promotion of French throughout Canada, including in Quebec.
This bill recognizes the predominant use of the English language in Canada and North America and the fact that this makes it imperative to protect and promote the French language. The purpose of the act, as proposed in this version, is clear: to promote the advancement of the substantive equality of status and use of English and French and to protect official language minority communities.
Bear in mind that, with respect to language rights, the courts have confirmed that substantive equality, as opposed to formal equality, is the correct norm to apply in Canadian law. This norm essentially means that we must consider the needs of the minority community to ensure equal access to services of equal quality for members of both official language communities. In the preeminent case R. v. Beaulac, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Michel Bastarache wrote that the purpose of the act, and I quote:
. . . affirms the substantive equality of those constitutional language rights that are in existence at a given time.
Bill C-13 explicitly sets out that substantive equality is the norm for the interpretation of the act.
Bill C-13 also enshrines in law that language rights are to be given a large, liberal and purposive interpretation and are to be interpreted in light of their “remedial character.” For example, section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is remedial in nature because, according to the courts, it is designed, and I quote:
. . . to correct, on a national scale, the progressive erosion of minority official language groups and to give effect to the concept of the “equal partnership” of the two official language groups in the context of education. . . .
This principle will guide the interpretation of the act in order to ensure better protection for official language minority communities.
The bill also recognizes that the private sector has a role to play in promoting and protecting French. With the modernization of the Official Languages Act, Bill C-13 ensures that federally regulated private businesses do their part to protect and promote French in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence outside Quebec. To that end, it provides for rights and duties that will ensure that consumers can communicate with certain federally regulated private businesses in French. It also provides for language-of-work rights so that employees can carry out their work and be supervised in French.
The fifth guiding principle of the reform calls for the Government of Canada to lead by example by strengthening the compliance of federal institutions. The Government of Canada and its institutions must be exemplary in their implementation of the act. This bill contains concrete measures to ensure access to the justice system in the official language of one’s choice.
The bill also contains measures to strengthen the role of the Treasury Board in monitoring the compliance of federal institutions with their official languages obligations and holding them accountable, while building on the role played by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the minister’s expertise in determining the needs of official language minority communities.
This bill also calls for brand-new powers for the Commissioner of Official Languages — who currently plays an ombudsman role — in enforcing the act. The commissioner now would no longer be limited to making recommendations but would enjoy a range of more compulsory powers, including an order-making power.
Lastly, the sixth guiding principle of the reform of the official languages regime calls for us to look beyond the immediate official languages needs.
Clearly, the linguistic landscape is changing, and Canadian society is changing rapidly too. This bill includes a whole new act that will ensure that the legislation remains relevant for generations to come. The bill also includes a requirement to conduct a periodic review of the provisions and implementation of the legislation.
It is a reflection of a desire to carry out an ambitious reform.
To be clear, the bill sets out new areas of intervention, such as post-secondary education in a minority context, francophone immigration, bilingualism on the Supreme Court, the right to work and receive services in French in federally regulated private sector businesses, as well as a new governance framework for implementation.
Bill C-13 represents significant progress towards ensuring the viability of both of our official languages and the vitality of our official language minority communities across the country.
I would now like to focus on some of the key provisions in this bill.
The bill provides for important adjustments that include measures to strengthen the oversight of the act by the Treasury Board Secretariat, which, for its part, has a mandate to monitor and report on federal institutions. An amendment in the other place further establishes the ministerial role for coordinating the Official Languages Act with the President of the Treasury Board.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage will continue to have a government-wide coordination role in terms of the preparation and delivery of the government’s five-year strategies, also known as “action plans.”
The bill seeks to balance the various roles and responsibilities while ensuring that the federal government remains above reproach and free from any perception of conflict of interest. This issue was raised by former commissioner of official languages Graham Fraser in his 2008 report, in which he stated that:
Central agencies should also avoid being judge and jury to their own proposals, and that is why they should avoid taking on program responsibilities.
Professor and Distinguished Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute Donald Savoie echoed this concern in his speech at the closing summit of the Cross-Canada Official Languages Consultations on the next Action Plan for Official Languages, stating that “. . . central agencies cannot be both judge and jury with respect to their efforts.”
Thus, the bill provides for a combination of responsibilities that builds on the respective strengths of these two institutions, a formula that has the advantage of having several ministers work together to raise awareness of official languages issues and to find solutions.
Bill C-13 also includes measures that considerably strengthen Part VII of the act, which concerns the advancement of French and English. By significantly consolidating this part and specifying the nature and scope of the positive measures that all federal institutions must take to support the development of our francophone and anglophone minorities and promote French and English in Canadian society, this bill takes into account the demands that were clearly expressed during consultations. Bill C-13 states that the positive measures must be concrete and taken with the intention of having a beneficial effect on the implementation of some of the government’s commitments, especially the commitment to protect and promote French.
In fact, Bill C-13 will add to the act a list of concrete examples of positive measures, for the benefit of federal institutions. Thanks to the bill, the Treasury Board will also be better equipped to monitor the compliance of federal institutions with their duty to take positive measures.
More concretely, the bill will ensure that the Treasury Board, in consultation with Canadian Heritage, establishes new policies and regulations to support federal institutions in taking positive measures, while holding them accountable for fulfilling their obligations. It is important to note that an amendment made in the other place will further ensure that the government considers the addition of linguistic clauses in bilateral agreements with provinces and territories. This was a significant request from communities that many senators, I think, have heard.
From now on, when taking positive measures, federal institutions will have to consult the communities in a “meaningful” way by doing the following activities:
(a) gather relevant information;
(b) seek the opinions of English and French linguistic minority communities and other stakeholders about the positive measures that are the subject of the consultations;
(c) provide the participants with relevant information on which those positive measures are based;
(d) openly and meaningfully consider their opinions; and
(e) be prepared to alter those positive measures.
An important principle of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, embodied in the Official Languages Act, is the advancement of substantive equality of English and French in Canada.
One of our two official languages faces an inescapable reality — and here, of course, I am referring to French, which is a minority language and quite vulnerable, I might add. Demographic realities on the North American continent have long been an important challenge for the defence of the French language in Canada. In recent years, the French language in this country has experienced a significant decline. Despite efforts undertaken over the past few decades, the latest census data confirms that the demographic weight of francophones continues to shrink. We must therefore ensure that any modernization of the act considers the fragile reality of the French language in Canada and includes concrete steps to counteract its decline.
The bill contains concrete measures to protect and promote French, including a requirement to adopt a francophone immigration policy, complete with objectives, targets and indicators to guide government actions.
The bill also supports sectors essential to the vitality of official language minority communities and protects and promotes strong institutions serving those communities.
The Government of Canada also recognized that the private sector has a role to play in protecting French and, for that reason, the bill provides for the creation of a new law, the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, which seeks to create a new regime for federally regulated private businesses.
Right off the bat, I want to emphasize that the bill contains amendments that were unanimously adopted in the other place. These amendments reflect an agreement in principle with Quebec and serve as an important testament to co-operative federalism. The goal is to harmonize our language regimes to advance the protection and development of the French language while fully maintaining the rights of English-speaking communities in Quebec.
All of these proposals seek to make official language minority communities places where people can live fully in the official language of their choice.
It is expected that the new regime will provide greater protection for French, benefiting francophones across the country, and will enhance the vitality of Canada’s official language minority communities.
Honourable senators, Canadian society is changing rapidly, and yet the Official Languages Act has not been thoroughly reviewed since the late 1980s. The bill therefore provides for a mechanism to review the act every 10 years, to make sure it remains current and has a positive impact from generation to generation.
Bill C-13 represents only one part of the reform of the official languages regime. The bill contains only the legislative measures that were shared by the Minister of Official Languages in February 2021 with the release of the public reform document, which also set out regulatory and administrative measures.
According to the information I have received, the regulatory process could be launched once the bill receives Royal Assent. These regulations are vital to fulfilling the vision that inspired this bill and the implementation of certain key measures.
In concrete terms, the reform begins with Royal Assent, but it will not fully take shape until regulations are made and the subsequent implementation of certain measures and new systems takes place as a result of orders-in-council.
Three regulations will be created. One will clarify the terms and conditions for the positive measures to be taken by federal institutions. Another will establish the framework for the new regime for federally regulated private businesses. The third will establish the scope of the new administrative monetary penalty system. This is one of the new powers granted to the Commissioner of Official Languages.
This new vision also provides for a set of administrative measures, which will be part of the pan-Canadian official languages strategy, better known as the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-28.
Although this flagship official languages strategy is independent and self-contained, it is implicitly linked to Bill C-13 in that it is one of the main vehicles for implementing the administrative and legislative measures of the reform.
Colleagues, I believe I can say that the Parliament of Canada is committed to the modernization of the Official Languages Act, as are many Canadians who are proud of their official languages.
I’m delighted that we can now study this bill. Like you, I’m eager to see a modernized act that will protect the French language and slow its decline in Canada, one that will promote and enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and one that will advance the substantive equality of English and French in Canada. The protection of minorities is a foundational principle of our Constitution, and our chamber serves as a forum to our linguistic groups.
I also want to acknowledge the invaluable work done by the parliamentarians at the other place and the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, who have been studying the issues associated with modernizing this quasi‑constitutional legislation since 2017. Thanks to your unwavering commitment, we can now proceed with the study of this important bill for Canada.
In closing, honourable colleagues, allow me to say, on a more personal note, that our official languages, our Indigenous languages and all the other languages spoken in this vast land that is Canada deserve to be cherished, to be spoken, to be protected, to be celebrated and to be kept alive. Maintaining, using, promoting and developing both of our official languages needs to be done with a keen awareness of the importance of ensuring the survival and development of Indigenous languages in Canada.
Like all languages, our two official languages are dynamic and are influenced by other languages. The words that make them up are coloured by a variety of tonalities. That is what makes them so strong and rich. As an Acadian writer of French origin, Newfoundlander Françoise Enguehard, wrote:
A language . . . is to be celebrated year-round, to be polished, to be learned and mastered, to be defended when called for, to be celebrated when possible, and above all, to be used.
Thank you for listening. Thank you. Meegwetch.
Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on the unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation at the second reading of Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada’s official languages. In speaking to this bill, I must above all acknowledge that the official languages are also a symbol of colonialism for Indigenous peoples in Canada. Besides the issue of territory, the predominant use of English and French has been at the expense of Indigenous languages and much more.
Having grown up in a minority community as a francophone, I acutely understand the role of language in identity construction and in understanding and preserving a people’s collective memory. It is important to remember that Indigenous languages are also part of the rich linguistic, cultural and identity tapestry of our beautiful and great country. We must recognize this facet of our history and take an interest in these languages and their vitality.
Of course, English dominance has also come at the expense of the francophone community in Canada. Let’s face it, the reform of the Official Languages Act is necessary and urgent. The demographic weight of the francophone minority has been steadily declining for decades, based on the criteria of mother tongue, language used at home and first official language spoken. We must act now to reverse this trend that threatens the vitality and development of our communities.
From the outset, I want everyone to know that I support Bill C-13 and want it to be passed as soon as possible. However, I believe it is important to point out the elements that are missing from this bill. My speech will take a critical look at this bill, given the importance of the language rights of francophones in minority situations and the fact that we have been waiting for a substantial reform of the Official Languages Act for over 50 years.
Confederation in 1867 marked the first time that the Constitution Act recognized the use of both English and French in Parliament as well as before the federal courts. In 1969, the first federal Official Languages Act was passed. The breakthrough at the time was section 9 of the act, which required every federal government department and agency to ensure that “the public can obtain available services from and can communicate with it in both official languages.”
The language rights of Canadians were further strengthened when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was entrenched in the Constitution in 1982. The Official Languages Act was then revised in 1988, affirming the government’s commitment to enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities and supporting and assisting their development. This brings us to today, May 2023, and the arrival of Bill C-13 in the Senate.
As the Italian poet and philosopher Giacomo Leopardi said, “Patience is the most heroic of the virtues precisely because it has not the least appearance of heroism.”
With the finish line so close, this quote highlights the heroes who have been working behind the scenes on this reform for several years in order to present the Government of Canada with a thoughtful and restorative reform proposal. I am thinking in particular of all the individuals and organizations working to defend francophones in minority situations, many of which have been working hard on this file for nearly 10 years and served as the catalysts for the modernization of the legislation.
It is also worth mentioning the patience of Canadians who aspire to become bilingual or to have their children do so. As an officially bilingual country, Canada should establish a legislative framework that allows for substantive equality of rights holders, but also for equal access to language immersion and learning of the other official language. Canada must provide itself with the means to achieve its ambitions.
Despite all these legislative developments, juxtaposed with developments in the courts, from the Société des Acadiens case to the Beaulac case, the demographic weight of francophones has declined over the years, as has the use of French in Canada. The proportion of people outside of Quebec whose first spoken language is French has decreased from 6.6% in 1971 to 3.9% in 2011.
In its current form, Bill C-13 is the result of hard work by French language minority communities and could possibly reverse this trend. However, this bill also has significant shortcomings.
Based on the pre-study conducted by the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and the testimony of several witnesses, I have identified what I believe to be the most important elements that are not in the version of Bill C-13 that we just received from the other place. By the way, I congratulate Senator Cormier on his excellent presentation of Bill C-13.
If you participated in any of the discussions about the Official Languages Act reform, then you surely heard that the stakeholders’ main request is for the Treasury Board to be responsible for coordinating and ensuring the implementation of the Official Languages Act. That was also one of the recommendations that the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages made in its report entitled Modernizing the Official Languages Act: The Views of Federal Institutions and Recommendations.
Minister Joly’s white paper, which gave rise to Bill C-13, explains that, when it comes to official languages, and I quote:
Accountability measures are fragmented into multiple processes and reports, and they are not always conducted in a timely manner.
It also states, and I quote:
The Treasury Board already has considerable powers . . . but the use of these powers has declined over time . . . .
The government then commits to, and I quote:
Strengthen and expand the Treasury Board’s powers, notably the power to monitor compliance with Part VII of the Act . . . .
The government also commits to, and I quote, “[a]ssign the strategic role of horizontal coordination to a single minister. . . .”
The bill does not make the Treasury Board responsible for implementing the entire Official Languages Act, but only Parts IV, V and VI and certain sections of Part VII, specifically subsection 41(5), which deals with positive measures, and paragraph 41(7)(a.1), which deals with bilateral agreements.
Clearly, Bill C-13 is inconsistent given that it requires the Treasury Board to exercise this role only for certain sections of Part VII, contrary to the intention expressed by the government in the white paper. When the time comes to review the act, I would like to see if it would be better to extend these duties to all of Part VII.
It does not make sense to me that the government, the House of Commons and the official languages committees of both chambers agree on this point, but that Bill C-13 restricts the scope of the Treasury Board’s powers in this manner.
Nevertheless, this bill and the amendments concerning the central agency partially address the concerns of organizations representing the interests of official language minority communities by expanding the Treasury Board’s powers and replacing its discretionary powers with duties.
For years, the act has been applied in a haphazard and incomplete manner, and this change will strengthen official languages oversight and accountability throughout the Government of Canada.
Bill C-13 was inconsistent in another way, in that it gave a leading implementation role to Canadian Heritage. The Official Languages Committee at the other place set matters straight by giving the Treasury Board the responsibility of assuming this leading role within the federal government as regards the implementation of the act. I am pleased with this correction that was made by the other place.
Although the Commons committee adopted an amendment to promote the inclusion of language clauses in agreements with the provinces and territories, the provisions on bilateral agreements are not binding and the minimum content of the language clauses was not defined.
The wording is so weak that I doubt if incorporating this provision will actually produce a result.
However, the federal government’s legal duties in relation to official languages do not stop at the moment it transfers money to the provinces and territories. Far too often, official language minority communities do not have access to the funding they are entitled to in order to grow and thrive. This systemic problem is seen at every level in our communities, from early childhood to the post-secondary level, and in community services.
Given that Bill C-13 lacks provisions to make the language clauses binding, we will have to monitor the implementation of those provisions vigilantly as a chamber of sober second thought. The federal spending power must respect its duties toward official languages. It may even be a constitutional rights issue, if it involves rights holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That is the segue to my third point.
Access to comprehensive data on primary and secondary school attendance is essential, since access to these schools is subject to a numerical criterion. “Where numbers warrant” means parents and school boards must be able to justify their demand for minority language educational facilities by proving to the provincial and territorial authorities that there are a sufficient number of children who have that right under section 23 of the Charter.
The provisions of Bill C-13 concerning the enumeration of rights holders are neither binding nor broad enough. For example, the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, or FNCSF, asked that the bill provide that the federal government commit to periodically enumerating children under section 23 of the Charter.
An amendment was presented at committee in the other place to require the enumeration, not the estimation, of the number of children of rights holders under the proposed subsection 41(4) of the Official Languages Act. However, an amendment to the amendment modified the text as follows, and I quote: “The Government of Canada periodically estimates, using the necessary tools, the number of children . . . .” That weakens the proposed amendment severely.
The public servant who appeared before the committee explained the alternatives as follows, and I quote:
In short, enumerating means counting. If we really want to count rights-holders, then we need to be able to use other tools that fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. . . .
If we are talking about coming up with an estimate, then only the federal government can do that. We would be using a snapshot. If we choose the term “enumerate”, then we really need to go through the provinces to get the exact numbers on an ad hoc basis . . . .
I am having a hard time understanding how shared jurisdictions present an obstacle to creating an obligation to enumerate children who have the right to minority language education. The promotion and respect of official language minority rights are a federal government responsibility. The government has a duty to advance the equality of status and use of the official languages under section 16(3) of the Charter. I hope that we will carefully study the matter of enumeration at the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
The FNCSF also asked that the Official Languages Act require federal institutions to take into account the needs of the rights holders’ school system when disposing of federal real property.
An amendment adopted by the House of Commons provides that federal departments and institutions must consult with minority communities and take their needs and priorities into account when developing a disposal strategy.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages will have to examine the details of that amendment.
In Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada found that rights holders are entitled to an educational experience that is substantively equivalent to the experience at nearby majority language schools.
Including provisions in Bill C-13 regarding the disposal of federal lands could prevent similar cases, with a view to achieving substantive equality between majority and minority communities in a given province or territory.
This situation is repeated too often in our communities.
I would be remiss if I didn’t also point out some positive things about Bill C-13.
Francophone immigration is a determining factor in the demographic weight of francophones in Canada. Immigration is also one area of jurisdiction where the federal government can act and exert a significant influence on the make-up of new arrivals to Canada.
Even though there has been a 4.4% francophone immigration target for nearly 20 years, it is outdated, since it does not help maintain the demographic weight of francophones in Canada. The government recently reached that target, but that was a first.
Clearly, we need much more than a simple francophone immigration policy. The elected members at the other place really understood this issue and its importance for the vitality of our communities and the French fact in Canada.
As a first step in the right direction, the bill sets out Canada’s duty to adopt a policy on francophone immigration that includes objectives, targets and indicators to increase immigration to francophone minority communities.
In order to improve this provision, the Official Languages Committee in the other place unanimously adopted an amendment that provides that the federal government must recognize the importance of francophone immigration by restoring and increasing their demographic weight, which suggests an obligation of result.
As far as francophone immigration is concerned, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in Bill C-13 finally gets a clear, precise, binding mandate. The public service must operationalize a cultural shift that is promising for the future of our communities.
Senator, your time has expired. Are you asking for five more minutes? Honourable senators, is five more minutes granted?
Thank you, colleagues.
Bill C-13 is very important for official language minority communities because the Official Languages Act in some way counterbalances a decentralized federal system for implementing language rights in a minority context. As a proud Franco‑Ontarian who grew up in a province that has long and often trampled on the language rights of its French-speaking minority from Regulation 17 to the threat of abolishing the Université de l’Ontario français and the Hôpital Montfort, to name but a few linguistic crises, I’m aware of the importance of the federal language rights regime in representing the interests of people from an official language minority community in Canada.
In most provinces and territories other than Quebec, there is no legal protection for French. New Brunswick is the exception, being the only officially bilingual province, and, in some way, the Province of Ontario as well, with its French Language Services Act. Consequently, official federal bilingualism has long been a guarantor of the rights of French-speaking minorities in Canada. The implementation of the Official Languages Act directly affects respect for the language rights of francophones in minority communities.
Bill C-13 is a breakthrough because it recognizes French as a minority language in Canada and North America due to the predominant use of English, expands and strengthens the Treasury Board’s powers as the central agency responsible for implementing much of the law, clarifies the positive measures, and requires IRCC to adopt a francophone immigration policy.
Several of the amendments that were adopted at the Standing Committee on Official Languages in the other place strengthened the proposed legislative framework.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages released a report on the modernization of the act that inspired various proposals for reforming the Official Languages Act. Colleagues, in order to enable us to start our review as soon as possible, please send Bill C-13 to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Honourable senators, we have before us today Bill C-13, the first major change to the Official Languages Act since 1988, and it reflects a series of recommendations to update the legislation. The Official Languages Act was originally introduced in 1968 and passed in 1969 — almost 55 years ago — and 54 years ago, this was groundbreaking and important legislation that has served our country well over the years. Colleagues, times have changed, and the bill before us today is a missed opportunity to include Indigenous languages in our Official Languages Act.
The Official Languages Act of 54 years ago was the right thing to do in 1969, and now, in 2023, we have the opportunity to also do the right thing and give Indigenous languages equal status and the same legal protection as our two official founding languages.
Colleagues, we have to step back and ask ourselves if the policy of our two founding languages — French and English — is a carryover from our colonial past. Prior to francophones or anglophones arriving in this part of North America, there were many Indigenous languages already spoken here. Those are the true founding languages of the land on which we now live.
Colleagues, is it not better to reflect on the true history of Canada and recognize that we may have many Indigenous languages as founding languages? Can the Senate play a major role and also seize this historic opportunity to send Bill C-13 back to the House of Commons and tell them to do better, tell them to include protection of Indigenous languages in this bill and tell them to provide the same legally enforced protection to Indigenous languages that we provide to English and French in this country? Colleagues, let us embrace the new Canada. Let us embrace the future rather than resisting change and fighting for the status quo.
The beginnings of Bill C-13 that is before us lay in the 1963 Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which provided the push for the legislation which followed. Speaking in support of the Official Languages Act in the House of Commons in 1968, then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau said:
In all parts of the country, within both language groups, there are those who call for uniformity. It will be simpler and cheaper, they argue. In the case of the French minority, isolation is prescribed as necessary for survival. We must never underestimate the strength or the durability of these appeals to profound human emotions.
Surely these arguments are based on fear, on a narrow view of human nature, on a defeatist appraisal of our capacity to adapt our society and its institutions to the demands of its citizens. Those who argue for separation, in whatever form, are prisoners of past injustice, blind to the possibilities of the future.
We have rejected this view of our country. . . .
That is what then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau concluded. These powerful words from 1968 would also apply to Canada today when we discuss Indigenous languages. But they were spoken over half a century ago, before there was a more complete understanding of the Indigenous culture of Canada.
But make no mistake: As early as 1963, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was explicit about the importance of language to culture, stating:
Language is also the key to cultural development. Language and culture are not synonymous, but the vitality of the language is a necessary condition for the complete preservation of a culture.
That same argument can — given our heightened awareness of Indigenous culture and history — be extended today to Indigenous languages.
More recently, in its June 2015 final report, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called upon the federal government to “. . . acknowledge that Aboriginal rights include Aboriginal language rights.”
Colleagues, today the governments of Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia are the only areas in Canada that have passed legislation aimed at protecting and promoting Indigenous languages. When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported, the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed itself to implementing all its recommendations. In addition, Canada supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in which culture and language rights are central to 17 of the declaration’s 46 articles and its protection and promotion of Indigenous culture.
For example, Article 13 of the UN Declaration states that:
Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.
Article 8 specifically mentions that:
Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or the destruction of their culture.
To that end, and in response to the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous Languages, which received Royal Assent on June 21, 2019.
Unfortunately, the Indigenous Languages Act, unlike the Official Languages Act, does not provide legal protections for Indigenous languages in the same way that the Official Languages Act protects both official languages. The Indigenous Languages Act promotes Indigenous languages through positive measures, but the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages does not have the same enforcement powers as the Commissioner of Official Languages, powers which are being strengthened in Bill C-13 before us. More importantly, those who believe their Indigenous language rights are being violated have no recourse to courts for those perceived violations under the act, unlike Part X of the Official Languages Act, which allows for complaints to be remedied by a federal court.
Why are there no similar court remedies in Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act? Colleagues, it is an act of good intentions, an act of reassuring words and a paternalistic pat on the head, but no enforcement.
In the past, the Senate has shown leadership on language issues. Bill S-3 was introduced in 2005 by the late senator Jean‑Robert Gauthier, and was intended to give some teeth to the Official Languages Act by stressing the binding nature of the commitment set out in Part VII of the act. Second, it imposed obligations on federal institutions regarding the implementation of this commitment.
Third, the bill included a remedial power that allows the courts to monitor the implementation of the act by governments. This bill was passed by both houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent in November 2005.
Colleagues, we owe it to the Indigenous community to embrace the new Canada we are building together. The old Canada thinking in this bill is partly the result of the distorted history we all studied when we were in school and the massive gaps in our knowledge of the Indigenous community, their customs and their society.
This absence of knowledge in Canadian society about our Indigenous history is slowly ending, and this bill should give legal protection to Indigenous language rights, thereby moving past the outdated view of only two official languages.
Once again, colleagues, the Senate, if it has the will — as it has done in the past — can improve language legislation and change the status quo.