Senator Gold: 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.

Senator Carignan: I’d also like to ask you a question about the testimony. The English testimony was translated into French, but the French testimony hasn’t been translated into English. Obviously, that reduces the impact of the testimony of those who chose to speak French. Their message hasn’t been disseminated or published in the same way as the English testimony.

Over $324,000 was budgeted for translation, so will the government commit to translating the French testimony into English, especially since the Privy Council Office is responsible for the archives of the Public Order Emergency Commission?

Senator Cormier: 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 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?

Senator Gold: 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.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: 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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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 Committe 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.

[Translation]

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.

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, I rise today in support 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, at second reading.

My support of this bill does not mean that I think it is a comprehensive solution for protecting the French language in Canada. However, it contains enough positive elements that it should not be dismissed out of hand either. In my opinion, Bill C-13 is a step forward that should be taken today, particularly given the fact that it took eight years for this update to be introduced.

That being said, I am no fool. Bill C-13 will not fix the demographic decline of French in Canada in just a few months or years. Francophone communities across the country are not just going to start getting all the services that have been promised in the new law in their language with the snap of a finger.

Bill C-13, as we received it in the Senate, will be a worthwhile tool, as long as the government gives our politicians and institutions the funding they need to meet the many commitments that will come into effect.

I would remind honourable senators that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has expressed doubts that the objectives set out in Bill C-13 will be achieved, given the rather modest amounts committed to that end in the most recent federal budget. Implementing and ensuring respect for the Official Languages Act in a country as big as Canada is a costly challenge.

Unfortunately, we must realize that the application of the provisions of Bill C-13 will become a significant economic issue in the years to come, and it will be our duty to remind the government of its commitments and obligations. As citizens and as politicians, we will have to ensure that the current government and those to follow will take concrete action to stop the demographic decline of francophones.

Canada’s Official Languages Act must not be a mere piece of paper to be bandied about only during an election campaign or even in regulatory or legal debates to demand that everyone’s rights be respected. Bill C-13 must be a way of life in Canada and must become, in time, a proud legislative achievement for a country that has become as multicultural as ours.

Although we have to be patient in some respects, at this point I am so pleased that Bill C-13 will grant a new right to work and be served in French in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence across the country. Working and living in one’s own language in a bilingual country should not be a battle, but a way of being.

I also want to say how happy I am with the new powers that will be given to the Commissioner of Official Languages to compel and punish federal institutions that do not comply with the Official Languages Act. This is a major and, frankly, long‑awaited change. At last we will have new provisions that will greatly facilitate the application of the Official Languages Act.

Although I am satisfied with the new requirement for the government to appoint bilingual judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, I am nevertheless disappointed that this mandatory bilingualism will not apply to the Governor General of Canada or the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick. In my opinion, these two office-holders simply must be able to communicate with citizens in both official languages. However, it would appear that the 1982 Constitution prevented adding such provisions to the new version of Canada’s Official Languages Act. I find that quite unfortunate.

We will have to continue to rely on the current government to ensure that the two official languages’ criterion is applied to these appointments. Unfortunately, the latest appointments have demonstrated that a prime minister has the political ability to say certain things but then do the opposite.

I want to come back to the political aspect of passing Bill C-13. I’m pleased to see that all the members in the other place — with the exception of one, whom I will talk about later — voted in favour of Bill C-13. That means that 300 elected representatives from across the country have passed this bill to modernize our country’s Official Languages Act. I want to stress that 300 MPs from across Canada voted in favour of the bill; it’s very important to remember that.

I think it’s important to note here that all political parties in the other place voted in favour of Bill C-13 after obtaining meaningful amendments from the government. Clearly, the last-minute compromises and additions yielded significant results, given that the Government of Quebec expressed its satisfaction and desire to see Bill C-13 passed by the Senate before we rise for the summer, which is fast approaching.

Historically, language issues between Ottawa and Quebec have been very controversial. However, with this series of 11 amendments negotiated in good faith and included in the bill, we are seeing the emergence of a new political dynamic that we were not accustomed to.

Obviously, no one could argue with the fact that the federal government needed to intervene to stop the decline of one of the country’s two official languages, French. This decline is not just happening in Quebec.

In this context, any law or initiative to protect and promote the use of French in Canada must be commended and supported, whether it be at the federal or provincial level.

It became a national and cultural emergency to do something to ensure that the historic bilingual character of our country lives on.

When I go back a bit, there are two points that seem important to me in Quebec’s support for Bill C-13.

First, there is the tacit recognition of Quebec’s power to legislate in order to protect and promote French within its territory, while maintaining the rights of the province’s anglophone community.

Second, Bill C-13 now includes certain aspects of Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, which target federally regulated businesses that hire employees not only in Quebec but in all areas of the country with a strong francophone presence. Airlines, railways and banks will be particularly affected by these new provisions.

Bill C-13 is not one-sided. It regulates and guarantees rights and services to minority communities in Quebec and across the country, whether those communities are anglophone or francophone.

I think it is a shame to have to say this again, but francophones were just as involved as anglophones in founding Canada, and their language needs to be respected and protected. I am talking not just about Quebecers, but also about the Acadian community and every francophone community in Ontario, Manitoba and throughout our great country.

Unfortunately, at the risk of repeating myself, there will always be fringe politicians who see efforts to protect the French language as a threat to their right to live in English. We saw a fine example of that in the other place.

What surprises me is that some of them live in Quebec, including the only MP who voted against Bill C-13 in the other place and who wanted to get rid of the references to the Charter of the French Language because he is convinced that the Quebec government is bent on taking away anglophones’ rights.

I just want to say that that member and those who support him, whether overtly or covertly, have an especially insulting attitude toward francophone Quebecers. Why? Because they don’t seem to realize that, as anglophone Quebecers, they have access to two anglophone universities in Montreal, namely McGill University and Concordia University. They also have access to an anglophone university in Sherbrooke, Bishop’s University. They also have access to anglophone colleges and anglophone schools, and they even have a constitutionally protected school board.

When these anglophone Quebecers go out, shop or deal with the government, they can do it in their own language. If they need to go to court, they can do it in English, without restrictions, without interpreters and without delays. Do francophones get as many rights and public services when they are the minority in other provinces? I believe that you know the answer.

To close this chapter, I just want to remind them of the striking revelation from Air Canada’s president and CEO, Michael Rousseau, who confessed that he had lived in Montreal for 14 years without ever having to speak French.

I think that the MP’s attempt to marshal a political uprising against Bill C-13 because he believed that his language is under threat in Quebec was an act of political naivety. I believed that period was over.

Quebec’s anglophone community has always been treated better than francophone and Acadian communities in other provinces.

I would add that that has always been the case and will continue to be the case even after the passage of the new Official Languages Act.

In closing, I want my colleagues to remember that a language can’t survive unless it’s taught properly and spoken every day. It should not be a struggle to live and speak in French in Canada. It is a right, a constitutional right that must now be strengthened.

I therefore ask you to vote in favour of Bill C-13 when the time comes, and then to join me in remaining vigilant in order to ensure that its content is implemented as set out in the bill.

Thank you for listening.