Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for underlining the ongoing challenges that Canadians are facing to secure affordable housing in the areas where they want to live.

The Government of Canada is doing its part. I won’t repeat what I’ve said many times in this chamber, but there have been serious investments and programs put in place on the federal side to assist and create incentives — top-ups to the Canada Housing Benefit, the Housing Accelerator Fund and so on. But, colleagues, as we know, the supply of housing is not exclusively a federal matter. It engages not only the provinces and territories but municipalities and their zoning and the private sector, of course, to say nothing of capital markets and the market more generally. The Government of Canada is doing its part, as many provinces, territories and municipalities are doing, in the hope and expectation that the housing crisis will abate and Canadians can find housing fit for their purposes.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the following oral questions:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 1, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Moodie, concerning the National Housing Strategy — Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 1, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Moodie, concerning the National Housing Strategy — Employment and Social Development Canada.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 1, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Moodie, concerning the National Housing Strategy — Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on February 8, 2023, by the Honourable Senator Omidvar, concerning the earthquake in Turkey and Syria.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Rosemary Moodie on June 1, 2022)

In Canada, eviction and rent control regulations fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, and therefore the National Housing Strategy (NHS) does not have specific eviction targets.

A foundational principle of the NHS is to address the housing needs of the most vulnerable, including those experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The NHS commits to reducing chronic homelessness by 50% by 2027-28, a target that is supported by Reaching Home: Canada’s Homelessness Strategy. Furthermore, a minimum 25% of NHS investments will support the unique needs of women and their children. As of December 31, 2021, an estimated $7.1 billion has been committed toward meeting the housing needs of this group. This represents over 28% of all NHS funding committed.

The complementary initiatives of the NHS address needs across the housing continuum, including for the most vulnerable Canadians. This includes direct affordability support to low-income households through the Canada Housing Benefit (CHB) and rental assistance for low-income households living in community housing. The NHS also includes programs to increase the supply of affordable housing such as the Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI) which quickly builds permanent affordable housing units to address the urgent housing needs of vulnerable Canadians.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Rosemary Moodie on June 1, 2022)

The Youth Employment and Skills Strategy (YESS), a horizontal Government of Canada initiative led by ESDC in collaboration with 11 other federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations, helps young people (ages 15-30) develop their skills and transition into the labour market.

The Housing Internship Initiative for Indigenous Youth, a YESS program delivered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, served over 330 Indigenous youth in 2021, providing housing-related internships, work experiences and on-the-job training.

Currently, one of the performance indicators for the YESS is the percentage of youth served from each of the following groups who are facing barriers to employment: Indigenous youth, youth with disabilities, and visible minority youth. Starting in 2023-24, YESS programs will begin to improve data disaggregation of under-represented youth being served and the socio-economic barriers they may face.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Rosemary Moodie on June 1, 2022)

Statistics Canada produces the Market Basket Measure (MBM), which establishes poverty thresholds that can be used to report on progress against some of the federal government’s social policy objectives. The MBM provides contextual information by shedding light on the characteristics of economically challenged populations who may be at risk of evictions and homelessness. Poverty reduction targets are set by Employment and Social Development Canada.

The MBM thresholds are based on the cost of a basket of goods and services, which represents a modest, basic standard of living for a reference family. Those with incomes less than their applicable thresholds, given family size and region of residence, are deemed to be in poverty. To account for potential regional differences in the cost of living, Statistics Canada publishes MBM thresholds for 53 regions across Canada (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110006601).

The thresholds are updated yearly to take into account inflation. To account for changes regarding what represents a modest, basic standard of living over time, the Poverty Reduction Act mandates that Statistics Canada undertake a review of the MBM basket and methods every five years.

Statistics Canada completed the most recent adjustments to poverty measurement in 2020 and will be launching the next review in 2023.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Ratna Omidvar on February 8, 2023)

Canada allocated $50 million in response to the earthquake in Türkiye and Syria of which $20 million was allocated to two matching funds. Matching funds are useful public engagement tools following disasters. The choice of partner is dependent on a number of factors, including local capacity and operational footprint in affected areas.

As the immediate needs of communities affected by the earthquakes in Türkiye and Syria became clear, the Government of Canada committed to match donations made to both the Canadian Red Cross and the Humanitarian Coalition.

On February 7, 2023, a matching fund of $10 million with the Canadian Red Cross was announced. This funding supports efforts of the Turkish Red Crescent.

On February 24, 2023, the Government of Canada announced it would also match $10 million in donations raised by the Humanitarian Coalition and its members to support efforts in Syria. The Humanitarian Coalition brings together twelve trusted Canadian humanitarian organizations.

An additional $30 million is supporting expanded operations largely by United Nations partners selected based on proven ability to rapidly scale-up and adapt operations to meet emergency needs.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, if you would one time answer our questions properly — Senator Housakos asked you a question.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I answered it.

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

Hon. Kim Pate: Colleagues, as I mentioned yesterday, consulting with disability communities is not the same as guaranteeing, in legislation, the protections they advocate. During her testimony at the Social Affairs Committee, Margaret Eaton, National Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Mental Health Association, clearly articulated that while the CMHA applauds the creation of Bill C-22:

. . . we also have some real concerns with the legislation because many crucial aspects of the benefit will be implemented by regulations and not by legislation. Regulations can be vulnerable to shifting political priorities, and if it’s not legislated, it means that future governments can make unilateral changes without requiring parliamentary oversight.

Precisely to avoid leaving the substance of this bill to be determined by the regulatory process, the CMHA emphasized that key recommendations made by the disability community should be “. . . baked into the legislation. . . .”

The pressure to pass Bill C-22 quickly was pitted against the importance of ensuring it was fit for purpose. This irreconcilable framing reflects a very real and urgent need to address and redress the disproportionate and shameful poverty rates for people with disabilities in this country. Shouldering this tension, many of the groups urging us to work quickly have also acknowledged the urgent need for amendments and regulation design to Bill C-22. Too many people with disabilities are in desperate straits.

As I said in committee and as I’ve discussed with disability advocates directly, as someone whose life’s work has been in collaboration and coalition with many of these individuals and groups, I recognize the pressure and responsibility they experienced. When I was in their position, I frequently heard, “This is the best we can get. If you push for more, you’ll likely get nothing. We’re running out of time. We have to get re‑elected, and then we can do more.”

And best of all: “Trust us.”

Today, however, I’m no longer in the challenging position of a non-governmental advocate offering only one option. Here, with all of you, honourable colleagues, we share the responsibility of scrutinizing the adequacy of the measures Bill C-22 offers and the opportunity to propose a more fulsome response. That’s the spirit in which I fully support the amendments adopted at committee; I’m so pleased that so many of you have also indicated your support, and I urge us to follow the implementation of the legislation and continue to push for further necessary improvements.

In particular, as the Social Affairs Committee, or SOCI, heard from Linda Bartram, First Vice-President, Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, this bill:

. . . leaves out a complete sector of a community of persons with disabilities in that it is restricted to working-age persons with disabilities and excludes, presumably, seniors.

The alliance emphasized that the unemployment rate for blind persons is 75%. They are forced to subsist on Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement alone once they turn 65. Their impact analysis showed that these individuals are subsisting well below the poverty line.

In Ontario, for example, a single person who qualifies for the Ontario Disability Support Program receives a maximum of $1,228 per month. This is well below the official poverty line, and from 2002 to 2021, the supports of an unattached single person with a disability decreased, plunging those with disabilities 18 percentage points deeper below the poverty line.

Friends, in most provinces, the majority of people in receipt of social assistance are persons with disabilities. This bill, now with amendments, has the potential to change that and take a huge step toward the elimination of poverty in Canada.

Minister Qualtrough heralded Bill C-22 as a once-in-a-generation legislation. I agree with her. If we only get one chance in our careers to do this, we must get it right. All the more so given our roles and responsibilities as senators.

As committee discussions here and in the other place underscored, adequacy must be enshrined as a fundamental principle of Bill C-22 in order to ensure that the Canada disability benefit provides the necessary supports for all people with disabilities to live with dignity. If the government is planning to fulfill this promise, then why not provide for adequacy upfront? Why ignore this deficit?

Together, we can fulfill our mandate to represent the interests of and address the issues faced by the most dispossessed, the most economically disadvantaged, individually marginalized and historically ignored.

Human rights and equality litigation experts have identified that, as it was introduced as originally written, Bill C-22 would assist middle-class folks with disabilities. It could also be a windfall to provinces that, as many did with pandemic benefits, may feed their coffers by clawing back provincial benefits in response while leaving those with the least to languish. Without national guidelines with respect to adequacy, the poorest will likely not just continue to be neglected but, worse yet, be plunged ever deeper into poverty.

As evidence mounts that increasing numbers of those without adequate economic, social and health resources to live in the community are considering end-of-life options preferable to the desperation and despair of deep poverty, this issue is made even more urgent.

Disability groups have demonstrated that they are ready and eager to play their part in the meaningful co-creation of regulations to realize the Canada disability benefit.

It is now time for us to ensure the framework proposed by Bill C-22 is strong enough to support its ambitions and that the burdens of any flaw in the legislation will not be borne by disability communities.

Our colleagues have done impressive work at committee. I hope we soon see unanimous concurrence from the other place so those who need this benefit the most finally have access to supports that allow them to live with dignity and choice. We can and we must do this. The time for heartfelt intentions that deliberately ignore the needs and interests of the most marginalized has passed.

It is time to do our job and make the Canada disability benefit just that.

Meegwetch, thank you.

An Hon. Senator: Wow.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 5:29 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, May 30, 2023, at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: I rise to speak briefly in support of every amendment to this bill. I have been asked to bring you a brief message from disability rights experts and some of the community leaders who testified at the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee. They ask you to support Bill C-22, as amended, and in so doing stand up for ensuring that no private insurance company can claw back the Canada disability benefit from impoverished people with disabilities.

Let me offer a different perspective than that of Senator Cotter on this amendment, sharing with you the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a provision in the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act that prohibited private insurance companies as a term of their contracts from certain actions. This amendment to this bill is a similar limitation.

Please also bear in mind that private insurance companies in their contracts and plans state that they can set off any government benefit, and that regulations to this act could not change that. The protection of Canada disability benefits reaching intended recipients must be in the statute. This is key to the amendment made to this bill by a majority of the members of the Social Affairs Committee.

Allow me to offer another reassuring example.

Enacted more than 40 years ago, the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act has a section very similar to what our committee added to Bill C-22. This provision in the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act has protected recipients of the compensation from private insurance set-offs or clawbacks for decades without legal challenge.

It may also be helpful to share with you this clear interpretation of federal authority from Canada’s dean of constitutional law, the late Professor Peter Hogg:

. . . the federal Parliament may spend or lend its funds to any government or institution or individual it chooses, for any purpose it chooses; and that it may attach to any grant or loan any conditions it chooses, including conditions it could not directly legislate.

Disability rights experts are asking you to adopt Bill C-22 as amended and, in doing so, stand up for cabinet having a reasonable timeline set for passing the regulations that are needed to get the Canada disability benefit to impoverished people with disabilities.

Stand up for the right to appeal that is now in this bill, and take note of the fact that the amendment secures appeal options in the two most crucial areas of decision making: eligibility and amount.

While also noting that Senator Cotter’s concern is addressed by the fact that this amendment in no way constrains development of regulations in consultation with disability rights advocates that could expand the appeal categories.

Stand up for ensuring that cabinet must take into account the additional costs of living with a disability and the intersectional needs of disadvantaged groups when setting the amount of the Canada disability benefit.

Honourable colleagues, senators have demonstrated they know the significance of the Canada disability benefit and have worked hard to be thorough and efficient. It was promised by the government in 2020, but introduced in the other place almost two years later, and then not called again for debate for more than three months. Consideration in committee was more focused and timely. The bill passed third reading on February 2 of this year.

In all, Bill C-22 spent eight months in the other place. In contrast, the Senate has conducted its own comprehensive study, including more days of second reading debate and almost double the amount of committee study time in little more than three months. The Senate has clearly responded to the pleas for urgent action. Today, we can ensure that this bill is returned to the other place, made stronger and clearer with amendments.

Honourable senators, please vote today to approve Bill C-22 with the high impact, least intrusive amendments in the report to you from the Social Affairs Committee based on substantial supporting evidence from experts in the field of disability rights.

I wish to close with appreciation to Minister Qualtrough for her dedication and skill as a disability rights expert and parliamentarian; to Senator Cotter for his dedicated sponsorship; to Senator Seidman for her thoughtful contributions as the official critic of this bill; to Senator Ratna Omidvar, Chair of the Social Affairs Committee, for her deft navigational guidance; to expert assistance from Senate and Library of Parliament staff; and, of course, to members of the Social Affairs Committee but, most of all, to every witness and individual who communicated with senators on this crucial legislative initiative that we are now given the honour and responsibility of returning as a strengthened bill to the other place, where all parties have expressed their support for the urgent need for Bill C-22 to proceed.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. René Cormier 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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

From now on, when taking positive measures, federal institutions will have to consult the communities in a “meaningful” way by doing the following activities:

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: 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.

[Translation]

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.

[English]

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.

[Translation]

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.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator, your time has expired. Are you asking for five more minutes? Honourable senators, is five more minutes granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator, your time has expired. Are you asking for five more minutes? Honourable senators, is five more minutes granted?