Concerns about references to Bill 96 in federal languages bill 'not warranted,' Liberal MP says

Francis Scarpaleggia is the Liberal Member of Parliament for the Lac-Saint-Louis riding.

He voted for his party's 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) despite some criticisms from the Quebec Anglophone community, many of whom live in his riding.

He spoke to CJAD 800 Radio host Andrew Carter.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Listen to the full interview here.

ANDREW CARTER: So you hold a reputation as a dedicated constituency representative close to your electors and focused on their political concerns and priorities, and I would have to say that a lot of your constituents' political concerns and priorities would have been not to vote in favour of Bill C 13.

FRANCIS SCARPALEGGIA: I share the frustrations with the Liberal government's heavy-handed approach to minority language rights and minority religious rights, and in particular, with Premier Legault's kind of cavalier attitude towards invoking the notwithstanding clause preemptively.

So I share those concerns. But as a legislator, I had to do a deep dive, and it's my duty to do a deep dive into a piece of legislation like this and to all legislation, actually, but I think I gave more attention to this one than almost any other. And after rigorous analysis, I came to the conclusion that the narrative that has taken hold over the last year-and-a-half is not really a reflection of what is in the bill. As a matter of principle, I think I need to vote on the content of the bill and not necessarily on the perception.

CARTER: I know you've quoted some people that you spoke to, but what about people like Eva Ludvig of the Quebec Community Groups Network. She says that it's very worrisome for the English-speaking community. Employees will have the right to receive all communications and documents from federally regulated private businesses, including offers of employment or promotion, notices of termination of employment, collective agreements grievances in French, and use regularly and widely used work instruments and computers in French. For instance, a radio station is federally regulated, so people extrapolate this to all sorts of things.

SCARPALEGGIA: Well, the bill omits the broadcasting sector, first of all, but when it comes to federally regulated businesses, what the bill is doing is actually creating a more bilingual environment, and that's a value that my constituents embrace. So it is not Bill 96. There's been conflation. Bill 96 has been conflated with Bill C-13, and I don't think that that is warranted.

If Bill C-13 will allow bilingual communications with employees and so on. But the other point is that it gives federally-regulated businesses the choice between applying Bill 101, which 99 per cent already apply, and choosing a more flexible federal framework that is in Bill C-13. So I don't think that that concern is really relevant in the context of Bill C-13.

But it does raise concerns and it raises fears. I've had people say to me, "Will I still be able to speak to bank tellers in English?" And I tell them, "Well, all the banks have already adhered to Bill 101, and now they'll have a choice." They can adhere to the language framework and C-13, which is more flexible than Bill 101.

There's a lot of I don't want to call it misinformation, but there's misperception as to what Bill C-13 does. Bill C-13 is essentially aimed at giving a little bit of additional support to fragile Francophone communities outside of Quebec by, for example, setting immigration targets for Francophone immigration. So I think many things have become conflated. I've had people say to me, "Well, you know, Bill C-13 will erode English-language education rights," but that's completely false because those rights are burned into the Constitution by Pierre Trudeau, and they are outside of the reach of the notwithstanding clause, so there should be no concern there. When it comes to language in the health sector, that's provincial jurisdiction. Bill C-13 has absolutely nothing to do with that, but there's a tremendous amount of confusion because of the narrative that has taken.

• Listen on CJAD 800: Why Lac-Saint-Louis MP Francis Scarpaleggia voted for Bill C-13

CARTER: You're seriously telling me that Bill C-13 will make workplaces in Quebec more bilingual?

SCARPALEGGIA: Well, it affords the francophone the right to work in French, but it doesn't take away the rights of an anglophone to communicate in English. And so that creates a more bilingual environment. I don't think you'll find anyone in Quebec who disagrees with the notion that a francophone should be able to work in French or be served in French.

What people have a problem with is under 96 is the idea that somehow we're excluding other languages, we're excluding English, but that's not the spirit of Bill C-13 at all.

• READ MORE: For continuing coverage on language issues in Quebec

CARTER: So let's talk about Bill 96, and how it's cut and pasted onto Bill C-13, and this is your former boss Clifford Lincoln writing about to Anthony Housefather, the only MP who voted against Bill C-13. "Housefather justifiably argues that by importing into this federal statute provisions of Quebec Bill 96, which applies the notwithstanding clause to shelter from court redress, and to nullify the application of Charter of Rights guarantees, a serious and negative constitutional precedent is being created. This is the reason why he proposed amendments to remove from Bill C-13 all references to Bill 96." This is far from a solitary opinion.

SCARPALEGGIA: I understand that. Clifford Lincoln is a mentor and friend. I worked for him for 10 years, but I see the bill from inside government and the intention of the government. I do not believe that, that including a reference to the diversity of language regimes in Canada in the preamble amounts to an endorsement of the preemptive use of the notwithstanding clause.

I don't agree with that argument. In fact, we had a vote in parliament on the preemptive use of the notwithstanding clause. It was a Bloc motion trying to assert that right, and the Conservatives voted with the Bloc, but parliament defeated that motion.

Liberal MP for Mount Royal Anthony Housefather waits for a session of the Standing Committee on Official Languages to begin, Friday, February 17, 2023 in Ottawa. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

CARTER: If you disagree with Bill 96, then why include it in Bill C-13?

SCARPALEGGIA: Well, quite frankly, I could have done without the preamble, to be honest with you. But the preamble is essentially laying the table. It's kind of a window dressing, and there's been a bit of preamble inflation in the last 20 years, the bills are having longer and longer preambles. But if you look at the body of the bill, it asserts very clearly, that language rights should be interpreted very liberally. Language rights, as I say, are burned into the Canadian Constitution in sections that are outside the reach of the notwithstanding clause. The Minister of Justice, who was an eminent jurist, as well, has said that he's going to challenge Legault on the preemptive use in court when Bill 21 gets to the Supreme Court. So there's not the government's intention is not in any way, shape, or form to endorse the use of the preemptive use of it.

CARTER: I know you're a good, local MP. But what's the reaction in the community been like? And how hard has that been for you? Just by the text messages I'm getting, [they're] very, very negative towards your stand.

SCARPALEGGIA: Well, there's, it's an emotional issue. Language is an emotional issue. And, as I say, the narrative has built up over the last year-and-a-half, because the two bills were sort of introduced in parallel. But that is one of the reasons I published an op-ed today in the Gazette, was to reassure constituents who are concerned but constituents are engaged on a lot of other issues as well, including the things like the crisis in emergency rooms and so on.

CARTER: People aren't buying -- based on what I'm seeing here -- people aren't buying your op-ed in the Gazette today.

SCARPALEGGIA: And that's fine. You know, it's my duty as an accountable legislator to explain to explain the rationale behind the way I vote. Not everyone has to agree. There's no problem there.  

The Andrew Carter Show airs weekdays on CJAD 800 Radio from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m.