“91.1 The Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick or any other person appointed by the Governor in Council who is responsible for representing His Majesty in that province must be able to speak and understand clearly both official languages at the time of their appointment.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.

Whereupon, Joël Godin appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Niki Ashton, Francis Drouin, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 6;

NAYS: Mario Beaulieu, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Richard Lehoux — 5.

On Clause 50,

“93.‍1 (1) On the fifth anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force and every five years after that”

The question was put on the amendment of Joël Godin and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Mario Beaulieu, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Richard Lehoux — 5;

NAYS: Niki Ashton, Francis Drouin, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 6.

“anniversary, the President of the Treasury Board, in consultation with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, shall un-

The question was put on the amendment of Joël Godin and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Mario Beaulieu, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Richard Lehoux — 5;

NAYS: Niki Ashton, Francis Drouin, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 6.

(a) replacing line 33 on page 37 with the following:

“anniversary, the Minister of Canadian Heritage shall, in consultation with the President of the Treasury Board, un-”

“(2) The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall cause a report of the review to be”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Francis Drouin and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Niki Ashton, Francis Drouin, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 6;

NAYS: Mario Beaulieu, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Richard Lehoux — 5.

“(1.1) The review undertaken under section (1) shall

(a) include a comprehensive analysis of the linguistic vitality, over the previous five years, of each of the linguistic minority communities in Canada and of the French-speaking inhabitants of Quebec; and

(b) be based on various indicators of linguistic vitality, including mother tongue spoken, language most often spoken at home, language transfer and language of work.”

The question was put on the amendment of Mario Beaulieu and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Mario Beaulieu — 1;

NAYS: Niki Ashton, Francis Drouin, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Richard Lehoux, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 10.

“(1.1) The review undertaken under subsection (1) shall include a comprehensive analysis, over the previous ten years, of the enhancement of the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities and of the protection and promotion of the French language in Canada.

(1.2) The comprehensive analysis undertaken under subsection (1.1) may include any relevant

(a) indicators that are related to sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities, including the culture, education – from early childhood to post-secondary education – health, justice, employment and immigration sectors;

(b) qualitative indicators; and

(c) quantitative indicators, including mother tongue spoken, language most often spoken at home, rate of anglicization and francization, language transfer and language of work.”

Debate arose thereon.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Marc G. Serré and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Niki Ashton, Mario Beaulieu, Francis Drouin, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Richard Lehoux, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 11;

NAYS: — 0.

“93.2 On any of the first 30 sitting days of each session of Parliament, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, with the support of the President of the Treasury Board, shall table in each House of Parliament a comprehensive summary of government spending and transfers to the provinces related to official languages during the previous session.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mario Beaulieu and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Mario Beaulieu — 1;

NAYS: Niki Ashton, Francis Drouin, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Richard Lehoux, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 10.

On Clause 51,

“51 Sections 107 and 108 of the Act are replaced by the following:

107 The persons holding the positions referred to in subsection 34(2) immediately before the coming into force of that provision shall continue in office.”

The question was put on the amendment of Marc G. Serré and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Niki Ashton, Mario Beaulieu, Francis Drouin, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 7;

NAYS: Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Richard Lehoux — 4.

On Clause 52,

“7.2 Section 7.1 does not apply in the case of any organization whose purpose is to intervene in any fashion in a test case involving the laws of a province.”

The question was put on the amendment of Mario Beaulieu and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Mario Beaulieu — 1;

NAYS: Niki Ashton, Francis Drouin, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Richard Lehoux, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 10.

On Clause 54,

(a) by replacing line 13 on page 39 with the following:

“Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to respecting Quebec's choices regarding its linguistic development provided for in the Charter of the French Language;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes and respects the”

“Canadian society, including that Quebec's Charter of the French Language provides that French is the official and common language of Quebec;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mario Beaulieu and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Mario Beaulieu, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Richard Lehoux — 5;

NAYS: Niki Ashton, Francis Drouin, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 6.

“6 (1) Quebec's Charter of the French language applies in its entirety to every federally regulated private business in Quebec instead of this Act.

(2) Within one year after the year in which this section comes into force, the Minister shall, on behalf of the Government of Canada and with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into an agreement with the Government of Quebec for the purpose of giving effect to subsection (1).

(3) The Governor in Council may make regulations under section 33 respecting federally regulated private businesses in Quebec only if the Government of Canada enters into an agreement with the Government of Quebec specifying their content.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.

Whereupon, Mario Beaulieu appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Niki Ashton, Francis Drouin, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 6;

NAYS: Mario Beaulieu, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Richard Lehoux — 5.

“6 (1) Quebec’s Charter of the French language applies in its entirety to every federally regulated private business in Quebec instead of this Act.

(2) Within one year after the year in which this section comes into force, the Minister shall, on behalf of the Government of Canada and with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into an agreement with the Government of Quebec for the purpose of giving effect to subsection (1).”

The question was put on the amendment of Joël Godin and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Mario Beaulieu, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Richard Lehoux — 5;

NAYS: Niki Ashton, Francis Drouin, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 6.

“7 (1) Federally regulated private businesses must communicate in French with consumers in Quebec and provide them services in French.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mario Beaulieu and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Mario Beaulieu — 1;

NAYS: Niki Ashton, Francis Drouin, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Richard Lehoux, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 10.

(a) replacing lines 21 to 23 on page 42 with the following:

“the federally regulated private business, including employment application forms, offers of employment, transfer or promotion, individual employment contracts, documents related to the conditions of employment, training documents produced for employees, notices of termination of employment, collective agreements and their schedules and”

“(1.1) An employee’s right set out in paragraph (1)(b) to receive communications and documents from a federally regulated private business in French continues after the employee ceases to be employed by the business.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Marc G. Serré and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Niki Ashton, Mario Beaulieu, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Marie-France Lalonde, Richard Lehoux, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 11;

NAYS: — 0.

“(3) The rights set out in subsection (1) do not prevent employees from carrying out their work in English, receiving communications and documents in English or using work instruments and computer systems in English.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Anthony Housefather and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Anthony Housefather — 1;

NAYS: Niki Ashton, Mario Beaulieu, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Marie-France Lalonde, Richard Lehoux, Marc G. Serré — 10.

“both official languages but the use of French must predominate over the use of English.”

The question was put on the amendment of Mario Beaulieu and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Mario Beaulieu, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Richard Lehoux — 5;

NAYS: Niki Ashton, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Marie-France Lalonde, Darrell Samson, Marc G. Serré — 6.

“set out in subsection (1) and that persons who were employees are able to exercise the right continued under subsection (1.1).

(2.1) When a federally regulated private business that has workplaces in Quebec publishes in a language other than French an advertisement to fill a position — including through recruitment, hiring, transfer or promotion — that is assigned to one of those workplaces, the business must also publish the advertisement in French and ensure the simultaneous publication of both linguistic versions by means that are of the same nature and that reach a target public of a proportionally comparable size.

(3) For greater certainty, the right set out in paragraph (1)(b) does not preclude communications and documents from also being in English or another language other than French but, in the case of widely distributed communications and any documents, the use of French must be at least equivalent to the use of the language other than French.

(4) The right set out in paragraph (1)(b) does not preclude the federally regulated private business from entering into an individual employment contract that is a contract of adhesion with an employee exclusively in English or another language other than French, if the business and employee so agree and the business has already provided the contract to the employee in French.

(5) The right set out in paragraph (1)(b) does not preclude the federally regulated private business from entering into an individual employment contract — other than a contract of adhesion — with an employee exclusively in English or another language other than French, if the business and employee so agree.

(6) The right set out in paragraph (1)(b) does not preclude the federally regulated private business from providing to an employee communications and documents exclusively in English or another language other than French, if the business and employee so agree, even after the employee ceases to be employed by the business.

9.1 A federally regulated private business that has workplaces in Quebec has the duty to ensure that an arbitral award that results from the arbitration of a grievance or dispute regarding the negotiation, renewal or review of a collective agreement respecting employees of the business who occupy or are assigned to positions in one of those workplaces

(a) is issued in French or, if it is issued in English or another language other than French, is translated into French without delay at the expense of the business and provided to the parties to the arbitration in both linguistic versions at the same time; and

(b) is translated into English or another language other than French as soon as feasible and at the expense of the business, if it was issued exclusively in French and a party to the arbitration requests a translation into the language other than French.

9.2 (1) A trade union that represents employees of a federally regulated private business who occupy or are assigned to positions in a workplace in Quebec has the right to receive communications and documents from the federally regulated private business in French.

(2) The federally regulated private business has the duty to ensure that a trade union is able to exercise the right set out in subsection (1).

(3) For greater certainty, the right set out in subsection (1) does not preclude communications and documents from also being in English or another language other than French but, in the case of widely distributed communications and any documents, the use of French must be at least equivalent to the use of the language other than French.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Marc G. Serré and it was agreed to.

(a) adding after line 13 on page 43 the following:

“(1.1) A committee established under paragraph (1)(c) by a federally regulated private business that has workplaces in Quebec must develop programs intended to generalize the use of French at all levels of the business in those workplaces, through the following:

(a) all members of the management group and employees having a good knowledge of French;

(b) an increase, if necessary, in the number of persons who have a good knowledge of French in order to ensure that it is used generally;

(c) the use of French as the language of work and of internal communications;

(d) the use of French in the working documents, work instruments and computer systems used in the business;

(e) the use of French terminology;

(f) the use of French in information technologies; and

(g) any other means that the committee considers appropriate.”

“(3) For greater certainty, programs referred to in subsection (1.1) do not preclude communications and documents from also being in English or another language other than French but, in the case of widely distributed communications and any documents, the use of French must be at least equivalent to the use of the language other than French.”

“impede the learning of French, as well as the nature of the activities carried out by the business, whether the workplace is a head office or a research centre, and the relations that the business has with entities outside Quebec.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Anthony Housefather and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Anthony Housefather — 1;

NAYS: Niki Ashton, Mario Beaulieu, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Marie-France Lalonde, Richard Lehoux, Marc G. Serré — 10.

(a) replacing lines 22 to 25 on page 43 with the following:

“those workplaces for any of the following reasons:

(a) the employee speaks only French;

(b) the employee does not have a sufficient knowledge of a language other than French;

(c) the employee claims the possibility of expressing themselves in French;

(d) the employee has exercised a right under this Act or made a complaint to the Commissioner;

(e) the business is seeking to deter the employee from exercising such a right or making such a complaint;

(f) the employee has taken part in meetings of, or carried out tasks for, a committee established under paragraph 10(1)(c) or a subcommittee created by such a committee;

(g) the employee has, in good faith, communicated information to the Commissioner in relation to a complaint made under section 18 or participated in an investigation conducted as a result of such a communication; or

(h) the business is seeking to induce the employee to endorse a document prepared by a committee established under paragraph 10(1)(c) or to dissuade the employee from doing so.”

“the employee and the business sets out the reasons that justify the requirement in any advertisement to fill a position that requires such knowledge.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), in order to demonstrate that a knowledge of a language other than French is objectively required by reason of the nature of the work to be performed by the employee, a federally regulated private business must, before requiring such knowledge, at a minimum,

(a) assess the actual language needs associated with the work to be performed;

(b) verify that the language knowledge already required of other employees is not sufficient for the performance of that work; and

(c) restrict the number of positions involving work whose performance requires knowledge of a language other than French.

(5) Subsection (4) is not to be interpreted as imposing an unreasonable reorganization of a federally regulated private business’s affairs.

(6) A federally regulated private business that has workplaces in Quebec must take all reasonable measures to prevent, in the work environment, the adverse treatment of an employee referred to in subsection (1) for any of the reasons referred to in that subsection or of an employee referred to in subsection (2) for the reason referred to in that subsection.

(7) If a federally regulated private business that has workplaces in Quebec is made aware of the adverse treatment, in the work environment, of an employee referred to in subsection (1) for any of the reasons referred to in that subsection or of an employee referred to in subsection (2) for the reason referred to in that subsection, it must take all reasonable measures to make the adverse treatment cease.

(8) For the purposes of this section, “adverse treatment” includes dismissing, laying off, demoting, transferring or suspending an employee, harassing them or taking reprisals against them or disciplining or imposing any other penalty on them.”

(a) by replacing lines 28 to 30 on page 43 with the following:

“for the sole reason that the employee”

“(2.1) Requiring an employee to have a knowledge of French does not constitute adverse treatment for the purposes of subsection (2) if the federally regulated private business is able to demonstrate that a knowledge of French is objectively required by reason of the nature of the work to be performed by the employee.”

The question was put on the amendment of Anthony Housefather and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Anthony Housefather — 1;

NAYS: Niki Ashton, Mario Beaulieu, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Marie-France Lalonde, Richard Lehoux, Marc G. Serré — 10.

“(1.1) A person who was an employee referred to in section 9 may make a complaint to the Commissioner if the person believes that the federally regulated private business that employed them has failed to comply with subsection 9(2) in relation to the right continued under subsection 9(1.1).

(1.2) A person who has a demonstrable interest in a position referred to in subsection 9(2.1) may make a complaint to the Commissioner if the person believes that a federally regulated private business has failed to comply with that subsection in respect of the position.”

(a) replacing line 12 on page 46 with the following:

“(a) the day on which the complainant became aware of”

“(b) the day on which the complainant ought, in the Com-”

“a) dans le cas où il est convaincu que le plaignant a dé-”

“made under subsection 18(1), (1.1) or (1.2) as if the federally regulated”

“complainant, refer a complaint made under subsection18(1) to”

“42 (1) On the fifth anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force and every five years after that an‐”

The question was put on the amendment of Joël Godin and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Mario Beaulieu, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Richard Lehoux — 5;

NAYS: Niki Ashton, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Marie-France Lalonde, Stéphane Lauzon, Marc G. Serré — 6.

On Clause 56,

“7 (1) Consumers in a region with a strong francophone presence have the right to communicate in French with and obtain available services in French from a federally regulated private business that carries on business in that region.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.

On Clause 57,

(a) replacing line 1 on page 58 with the following:

“57 (1) The portion of subsection 9(1) of the Act be-”

“(2) Subsection 9(2.1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2.1) When a federally regulated private business that has workplaces in Quebec or a region with a strong francophone presence publishes in a language other than French an advertisement to fill a position — including through recruitment, hiring, transfer or promotion — that is assigned to one of those workplaces, the business must also publish the advertisement in French and ensure the simultaneous publication of both linguistic versions by means that are of the same nature and that reach a target public of a proportionally comparable size.”

On new Clause 57.1,

“57.1 Subsection 9.2(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

9.2 (1) A trade union that represents employees of a federally regulated private business who occupy or are assigned to positions in a workplace in Quebec or a region with a strong francophone presence has the right to receive communications and documents from the federally regulated private business in French.”

On Clause 58,

(a) replacing line 7 on page 58 with the following:

“58 (1) The portion of subsection 10(1) of the Act be-”

“(2) The portion of subsection 10(1.1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(1.1) A committee established under paragraph (1)(c) by a federally regulated private business that has workplaces in Quebec or a region with a strong francophone presence must develop programs intended to generalize the use of French at all levels of the business in those workplaces, through the following:”

On Clause 59,

(a) replacing line 14 on page 58 with the following:

“59 (1) The portion of subsection 11(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by”

“workplaces for any of the following reasons:

(2) Subsection 11(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:”

“(3) Requiring an employee to have a knowledge of a language other than French does not constitute adverse treatment for the purposes of subsection (1) if the federally regulated private business is able to demonstrate that a knowledge of that language is objectively required by reason of the nature of the work to be performed by the employee and, in the case of a business that has workplaces in Quebec, the business sets out the reasons that justify the requirement in any advertisement to fill a position assigned to one of those workplaces that requires such knowledge.

(3) The portion of subsection 11(4) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a federally regulated private business that has workplaces in Quebec, before requiring knowledge of a language other than French of an employee who occupies or is assigned to one of those workplaces, must, in order to demonstrate that a knowledge of that language is objectively required by reason of the nature of the work to be performed by the employee, at a minimum,

(4) The portion of subsection 11(4) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), in order to demonstrate that a knowledge of a language other than French is objectively required by reason of the nature of the work to be performed by the employee, a federally regulated private business must, before requiring such knowledge, at a minimum,

(5) Subsections 11(6) and (7) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(6) A federally regulated private business that has workplaces in Quebec or a region with a strong francophone presence must take all reasonable measures to prevent, in the work environment, the adverse treatment of an employee referred to in subsection (1) for any of the reasons referred to in that subsection or of an employee referred to in subsection (2) for the reason referred to in that subsection.

(7) If a federally regulated private business that has workplaces in Quebec or a region with a strong francophone presence is made aware of the adverse treatment, in the work environment, of an employee referred to in subsection (1) for any of the reasons referred to in that subsection or of an employee referred to in subsection (2) for the reason referred to in that subsection, it must take all reasonable measures to make the adverse treatment cease.”

On Clause 62,

(a) by replacing lines 33 to 35 on page 59 with the following:

“the Governor in Council shall take into account the following factors, as well as any factors that the Governor in Council considers appropriate:”

“nority communities, including the institutional vitality of the French linguistic minority community of the region, which could be established, among other factors, by the presence or absence of a public elementary or secondary school, a cultural or community centre or other institutions belonging to that minority; and

(d) the offer of services in French by federal institutions under Part IV of the Official Languages Act.”

The question was put on the amendment of Joël Godin and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Mario Beaulieu, Bernard Généreux, Joël Godin, Jacques Gourde, Richard Lehoux — 5;

NAYS: Niki Ashton, Angelo Iacono, Arielle Kayabaga, Marie-France Lalonde, Stéphane Lauzon, Marc G. Serré — 6.

On Clause 71,

“(3) Subsections 36(2) to (4), section 37, subsection 38(2),”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Niki Ashton and it was agreed to.

(a) replacing line 3 on page 64 with the following:

“(5) Sections 55 to 57.1, subsections 58(1) and 59(1) to (3) and (5) and sections 60 to 63 come into force on the sec-”

“(6) Subsection 58(2) comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

(7) Subsection 59(4) comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”