THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, October 6, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to official languages generally; and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Allister W. Surette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening everyone and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Before we begin, I’d like to say a few words about preventing audio feedback incidents. I believe we’re used to keeping our earpieces away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone; activation and deactivation will be managed by the technical operators.
My name is Allister Surette, and I’m a senator from Nova Scotia and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
I’d now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba, Quebec.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Patterson: Rebecca Patterson, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you, esteemed colleagues. I’d like to welcome all of those who are here with us tonight, as well as those who are watching us online at sencanada.ca.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on September 25, we will begin our meeting with the appearance of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge.
Mr. Théberge is accompanied by three of his officials: Pierre Leduc, Assistant Commissioner, Strategic Orientation and External Relations; Patrick Wolfe, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance and Enforcement; and Pascale Giguère, General Counsel.
Good evening, Mr. Théberge. You will have five minutes for your opening remarks, followed by questions from the senators. We’re a small group, so I’ll be able to give each senator at least five minutes, including questions and answers.
Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, good evening.
Before I begin, I’d like to acknowledge that the lands on which we are gathered are part of the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, an Indigenous people of the Ottawa Valley.
I’m pleased to be with you today to present my very last annual report as Commissioner of Official Languages.
As you know, the modernization of the Official Languages Act two years ago gave me new powers to help ensure that federal institutions comply with the act.
My team and I continued our efforts in 2024-25 with the launch of a new mediation service and the implementation of the power to enter into compliance agreements, make orders and publish investigation summaries.
[English]
However, some of the key elements needed to fully implement the modernized act are still missing. Until strong regulations are in place and the required orders have been made, we will be limited in our ability to achieve its objectives.
The 1,163 admissible complaints that were filed with my office in 2024-25 show that non-compliance with the act continues to be an issue. The repeated contraventions of the act in recent national commissions are particularly worrying. Commissions with a national mandate must be able to operate in both English and French so that all Canadians can follow their work and participate in the official language of their choice.
In order to prevent these situations from reoccurring, I recommend that by June 30, 2027, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages examine the issue in an effort to improve compliance with the language obligations of temporary committees of inquiry.
I also recommend that by June 30, 2026, the Clerk of the Privy Council develop and implement a plan so that certain measures are taken whenever a commission of inquiry is established.
[Translation]
Another issue that concerned me in 2024-25 was the volume of complaints about language of work. More than one in five admissible complaints is about a contravention related to language of work, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Many public servants are still reluctant to file a complaint when their language rights are infringed for fear of damaging their work relationships.
Of course, I’m pleased about the amendments to the act that came into force on June 20 and that confirm the right of federal public servants to work in the official language of their choice in regions designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes, regardless of the linguistic identification of their position.
The Treasury Board Secretariat also raised the minimum second language proficiency requirement for supervisory positions whose incumbents supervise employees in regions designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes.
[English]
In my annual report, I recommend that by September 30, 2026, the President of the Treasury Board implement a monitoring mechanism for federal institutions to ensure that they take and maintain measures to protect the language rights of employees in designated bilingual regions who are supervised by incumbents of unilingual positions or by incumbents of bilingual positions who do not meet the CBC second-language requirements.
Finally, I’m aware that the current political and economic context is difficult. Despite this, I expect official languages to continue to be a priority.
I therefore recommend that by May 30, 2027, the deputy heads of federal government institutions take the necessary measures to ensure that their institutions’ language obligations and their employees’ language rights are respected and taken into account during any budget reduction exercises in the federal public service.
[Translation]
I would also like to mention that I sent a letter to the President of the Treasury Board Secretariat regarding his intention to extend a number of steps in the process for the Official Languages Regulations Reapplication Exercise.
I understand, of course, that the purpose of efforts to cut down on red tape is to make federal institutions more efficient and provide better services to Canadians.
However, I would like to reiterate that official languages are not merely red tape, and they absolutely should not be sacrificed for the sake of efficiency.
[English]
It is essential that the proposed changes not be made at the expense of access to services in both official languages, which contributes directly to the development and vitality of communities.
Thank you for your attention. I’m now ready to answer your questions, which you’re welcome to ask in the official language of your choice.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Théberge. As I’ve mentioned, each senator will have five minutes, including questions and answers. If time permits, we will be able to have a second, and maybe even third, round.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here with us today, Mr. Théberge.
My first question was meant to be my third, but since you brought it up, I’ll start there. In your report, you made one recommendation to Treasury Board to be implemented by September 30, 2026. Did Treasury Board respond to your recommendation? Are they favourable to it?
Mr. Théberge: We are yet to receive a response to this recommendation. Since it includes a set deadline, we’ll see what happens. We’re still waiting for a response.
Senator Poirier: Is it a problem that your recommendation hasn’t been followed up on yet?
Mr. Théberge: Could you repeat the question?
Senator Poirier: Are you concerned at all about your recommendation not having been followed up on yet?
Mr. Théberge: Just like every officer of Parliament, I’d like an immediate response to my recommendations.
I am, however, very aware of the fact that whenever a recommendation is made, that sets off a whole series of processes in a federal institution. Just because a response hasn’t been given doesn’t mean that the recommendation isn’t being worked on.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Part VII of the modernized Official Languages Act strengthens the requirement to support official language minority communities. However, the regulations needed to guide its implementation are still missing. Why is the government taking so long to introduce these regulations? How does this delay affect your ability to make real progress on the ground?
Mr. Théberge: In terms of the reasons for the delays, it would be better if someone else answered that question.
What is clear is that the regulations relating to Part VII are essential to the implementation of that part of the act. As you mentioned, Part VII is the part of the act that deals with minority language communities.
The act specifies certain commitments on the part of the government. Part VII refers, among other things, to protecting and promoting French across the country, immigration, the education continuum and Statistics Canada. The absence of regulations has an impact on how Part VII will be implemented.
Part VII states that federal institutions have the duty to take positive measures to support the development of these communities.
A regulation is almost like a road map; it’s the rollout of the implementation procedure.
For now, Part VII is in effect, but not fully. This is an important issue for the communities, and it has been more than two years since the bill was passed. We are monitoring this process very closely. We have heard some people say, even in committee, that it will happen in the fall. As you know, fall lasts until December.
There is a sense of urgency around Part VII. When the regulations are tabled, I think it would be a very good idea for the committee to examine them.
Senator Poirier: In your opinion, what impact would continued delays have on our communities?
Mr. Théberge: The act sets out certain commitments, but with the deadlines, how are we going to ensure that these commitments are actually fulfilled in the communities?
Federal institutions have obligations, but they have no guidelines.
As a federal institution, we would like to have a road map to know what we should be doing.
We have developed a road map for federal institutions on the application and implementation of Part VII, but it remains just a document from the commissioner’s office; it’s not a regulation. As long as the regulations aren’t in force, this will have an impact on the implementation of the act and, by extension, on community development.
Senator Cormier: Welcome, everyone. I have a question concerning the travelling public and governance.
It will come as no surprise to you that we are all a little stunned by Air Canada’s decision to cease operations at Bathurst Airport as of January 30, 2026. I know that a complaint has been filed with you, so I can understand the context of the complaint review.
Could you confirm Air Canada’s obligations under the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Théberge: They are subject to Parts IV and V of the act and also to Part VII of the act.
This mainly concerns, for example, communications with the public and the provision of services in both official languages. They have an obligation to promote the equality of both languages within a company.
I cannot answer the specific question regarding Bathurst, as we are currently assessing whether the complaint is admissible or not. There is investigation secrecy.
Senator Cormier: Air Canada, under subsection 41(5) of Part VII, has an obligation to take concrete measures to support the development and growth of communities. Air Canada also has a responsibility to avoid or mitigate the negative impacts of its decisions.
Considering the current situation, it is conceivable that Air Canada’s decision may have a negative impact on the development and growth of communities, both economically and socially, as well as culturally. Air Canada or not, these obligations are clearly set out in Part VII of the act, are they not?
Mr. Théberge: With the exception of Air Canada, all federal institutions are subject to the same regulation.
A federal institution must conduct an impact analysis of its decisions, policies and programs and ensure that these decisions do not have a negative impact on communities. In general, this applies to all federal institutions.
Senator Cormier: I will return to the example of Air Canada, which said it made this decision for reasons of commercial viability. Now we know that the Government of Canada is preparing to make budget cuts.
Are you concerned, as with Air Canada, that these budget cuts will be made at the expense of the government’s and federal institutions’ official language obligations?
Mr. Théberge: In the recommendation we made in the annual report, we raised the issue of budget cuts and reductions. In the past, we have already seen cutbacks in areas such as language training and other types of services designed to support bilingualism within the federal government.
Who will remain in place to provide services when there are staff reductions? Will we still have the capacity within the federal government to offer services and communicate with citizens in both official languages? That is a concern I have.
If we cut back on language training, how will we be able to provide these services? We must remember that it is the public service that must provide these services and communicate with citizens.
This is not the first time I have seen this kind of budget cut in my career; it is too easy to cut certain items from the budget, such as language training.
Senator Cormier: The governance of the Official Languages Act, the relationship between Treasury Board and the Department of Canadian Heritage. We hear immense frustration from Canadian Heritage, which claims that Treasury Board is not doing its job and is not being proactive.
What is your relationship with these two departments, and how would you assess the effectiveness and coordination of implementation between Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage?
Mr. Théberge: I would say that, among employees, there is very good collaboration between Canadian Heritage and Treasury Board.
In the past, Treasury Board has issued — and continues to issue, in my opinion — guidelines that are not sufficiently prescriptive. This means that federal institutions are given far too much flexibility in implementing the Official Languages Act, for example, whether it be Part IV or Part VII.
We do not have strong, robust guidelines that require federal institutions to do this or that. This is a significant challenge, because federal institutions are given a great deal of flexibility in implementing the act.
I can’t speak to the relationship between Canadian Heritage and Treasury Board, but let’s just say that in terms of Canadian Heritage’s work, they are very involved in the regulations, in two of the three regulations, for example.
I think that in the new governance model, it is very much the responsibility of Treasury Board to ensure that the act is properly implemented.
[English]
Senator Patterson: Thank you very much. I will ask my question in English. I come from the Canadian Armed Forces, who are not actually public servants. But when it comes to the Official Languages Act, rightfully it includes the Canadian Armed Forces as well as the Department of National Defence. Many support units across this country and internationally are designated official bilingual units. There are some positions that cannot be exchanged for a public servant, for example.
The largest number of people in the public service are with the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. My concern is about budget cuts, not only for access to second-language training, but we also know that the cost and frequency of testing means — especially as you start to head west or east — we are going to have people who are not able to speak in both official languages.
Do you have any recommendations or thoughts on that special niche that comes with uniformed members, because I wish to point out the most junior level of supervisor is a Master Corporal; they are the backbone of the Canadian Armed Forces. In accordance with the official language regulation, they should be CBC.
I have concerns about budget cuts to second-language training. I know many of your complaints do come through the department, by sheer volume and because of what I have just shared with you. Do you have any recommendations on how the Department of National Defence is investing in things that fly, sail and do whatever, so we can protect language training and get people across the start line so they can do this?
Mr. Théberge: National Defence has to keep in mind they have to respect their obligations no matter what. If you’re called upon to reduce staff, it has to be done in such a way to still have the capacity to be able to operate in both official languages.
The future for the Armed Forces is probably not a reduction; I think we’re going in the opposite direction. It would be extremely important, once we bring people into the service, that we ensure that everybody has a professional development plan; I think they do, but part of that plan has to be language training.
I find in many organizations there’s still a reticence in terms of trying to integrate bilingualism in all of the components of the organization. It sometimes tends to be in one part of the organization and not everywhere. That is a challenge. It is not only a challenge for the Armed Forces, it is a challenge across the public service where we have not fully integrated official languages in the operations of the organization.
The Armed Forces are not unique in a sense, but they do have strong representation from both official language communities in the Armed Forces. It’s an interesting dynamic.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome, Commissioner. We are delighted to have you here — I am particularly pleased. This is the first time I have met you. I am truly delighted to meet you in person.
As you know, Mr. Carney’s government plans to deploy artificial intelligence on a large scale within the federal government. The company Cohere was recently tasked with initiating work on this. In March 2025, when the government released the 2025–2027 Artificial Intelligence Strategy for the Federal Public Service, you expressed serious concern about the limited attention given to official languages in the strategy. Could you explain further the reasons for your concern? What risks does AI pose to real equality in official languages?
Mr. Théberge: Thank you for the question. I noted at the outset that artificial intelligence offers all kinds of possibilities, but that there are also dangers associated with its use.
First, there is a lot of talk about artificial intelligence in relation to translation, for example. The subject of translation comes up all the time — we have just launched a pilot project called GCtranslate. I was given a demonstration; it’s quite impressive. That said, it’s important to always have people on hand to ensure a certain level of quality in these translations and in the way the systems are trained. It’s a system that is constantly learning. Where will we get the corpus to train the system? The advantage with GCtranslate is that Canada has the largest corpus in the world in terms of French terminology. I’m not worried. But when we ask tools to develop things, write briefing notes or whatever, a lot of the content will come from the internet. What is the main language of the internet? It’s English. There is a certain bias in these products.
Also, when we talk about language, it is important to understand that one of my concerns is that if everything can be translated quickly, French will become a language of translation. It will become even more secondary than it is now. What we want is to ensure that both languages can be used on a daily basis in the federal public service and that employees can use the official language of their choice. Will these tools enable them to do so, or will we find ourselves in a situation where we are doing much, much more translation than we do now?
A language is something that is spoken. It establishes relationships between people. We must not lose sight of that when we talk about artificial intelligence. As I said at the beginning, there are opportunities, but there are also dangers. In principle, I am not against artificial intelligence. It is important to use the tools we have at our disposal. We will see the results of this pilot project and its impact on the way we work, but I think we need to move forward and be very cautious at every stage.
Senator Gerba: If I understand correctly, you are not opposed to this, but you may have some recommendations for the government to ensure that the use of AI complies with the Official Languages Act. Would you have any recommendations in this regard?
Mr. Théberge: In fact, after their strategy was published, we suggested to the President of the Treasury Board that we look into official languages and artificial intelligence. If I am not mistaken, in response to our letter, they are organizing a symposium on artificial intelligence and official languages, which will take place in November. Honestly, if we hadn’t raised the issue, I don’t think it would have been discussed. It is clear that….
The other thing is that there are a lot of translation tools that people use. There’s DeepL and Google Translate. This is dangerous because there is no corpus or uniform language across the federal government. When you use DeepL, for example, the corpus doesn’t stay in Canada; it goes to Germany. This means that the corpus cannot be used later to train the system.
Senator Moncion: Welcome. I apologize for my late arrival and for missing your opening remarks.
I don’t know if you’ve mentioned it, but I’d like to discuss financial penalties. This is one of the components that is about to be implemented. Have you been consulted on the framework for financial penalties, how they would be administered and so on? Have you been consulted on this issue?
Mr. Théberge: We were consulted in due form and we are waiting to see if our recommendations will be incorporated into the regulations. We wanted flexible regulations with broad application. The administrative monetary penalties only target one area, as clearly identified, namely transportation. What do we mean by transportation? Does it refer to the travelling public or is it much narrower? We are waiting to see the final product.
Senator Moncion: Precisely, let’s talk about the fact that this is only related to transportation. The only air carrier is Air Canada and the only rail carrier is VIA Rail. Both of these entities are under federal jurisdiction. We will be penalizing groups that already have this responsibility, while other air carriers are not required to offer these services and do not necessarily have an interest in doing so. Are there plans to extend the scope of these types of financial penalties to other groups, or will they remain applicable only to entities under federal jurisdiction?
Mr. Théberge: We are talking about federal entities, but the measure could also affect the entire airport network, which is just as much a part of the concept of public travellers. It could affect immigration services and their components. Many of the complaints we receive each year directly or indirectly affect public travellers. Some time ago, we submitted a discussion paper in which we called for much broader financial penalties. However, this is what we ended up with in the law.
Senator Moncion: You mention broader sanctions. When the new Canada Infrastructure Bank was created, job postings were advertised. However, these postings failed to indicate that candidates had to be bilingual. This was a new agency that had just been created and had not thought to include bilingualism in its job postings, even though this is a fundamental requirement. That is why financial penalties would be useful in the various departments. Is there a way to move in this direction via Treasury Board?
Mr. Théberge: The best way to meet bilingualism requirements would be to make it a criterion for appointments made by the Governor-in-Council, for example. Two or three years ago, we made a recommendation to that effect. The House of Commons official languages committee did look into the matter, and I know that a report was prepared. We succeeded in getting a provision included in the act stating that all deputy ministers who are not bilingual when they take office must become bilingual. Honestly, that is not enough. We should require that, for all appointments made by the Governor-in-Council, basic criteria be met to require bilingualism. There are a great many appointments made by the Governor-in-Council.
The example you give is an excellent one, because new structures are constantly being created. Very often, candidates are sought outside the public service, but there are no strict rules governing bilingualism. I feel that this issue is being overlooked.
It is often said that leadership is crucial for official languages. It all starts at the top. If the senior manager of an organization does not speak one of the two official languages, obviously, the official language of the manager will be used. This problem has existed for a long time. Some progress has been made at the CBC with regard to supervisors, and due to the fact that a deputy minister must be bilingual, but the process is very slow indeed.
The Chair: We will now move on to the second round of questions, keeping the interventions shorter.
Senator Poirier: Your 2024-25 report refers to a year of transition during which the office adapted to its new powers under the modernized Official Languages Act. What were the biggest challenges you all faced in adjusting your office to these new mandates?
Mr. Théberge: The main challenge was ensuring that we had the right resources to move forward with implementation. Previously, we had an ombud role, but now we are much more judicialized, as our decisions can easily end up in court. With the new powers, we had to create a new investigation process from start to finish.
I like to compare it to a motorway. Someone files a complaint, the car gets on the motorway, and there are different ramps. Do we launch an investigation? Should the federal agency take corrective measures without an investigation? Do we negotiate a compliance agreement or go to mediation? All of this required a reorganization of the Office of the Commissioner, and in particular Mr. Wolfe’s office so that it could use these new powers. This involved a great deal of work, including the classification of employees. A lot of work is also being done to promote the new powers to federal institutions, which have been working in the same way for 50 years. A person files a complaint, an appeal is made, an investigation is conducted, and recommendations are made. However, there are now different options available to them, such as entering into a compliance agreement, even though they do not know what a compliance agreement is or who is responsible for it. They can also go to mediation. Often, in mediation, complainants who wish to remain anonymous will not be interested. We are now waiting for other types of powers.
I would also like to point out that we have not discussed the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act this afternoon, but this is a new mandate for the Office of the Commissioner. We have never worked in the private sector. Once again, a new structure will be needed to properly fulfill this mandate in the private sector. Today’s Office of the Commissioner is version 3.0, not 2.0. It took a tremendous amount of work to reorganize and restructure in order to move forward with the implementation of these new powers.
Senator Poirier: What steps remain incomplete or at risk in terms of making your new powers fully operational? How do you intend to address these risks?
Mr. Théberge: We are waiting for regulations. That is one of the things that is preventing us from really moving forward at the moment. We have done mediation and reached compliance agreements. We are using new grounds to terminate investigations. We often talk to federal institutions so that they take corrective action immediately. We are using the powers we have while we wait for regulations to be issued for other powers.
Senator Cormier: I would like to follow up on the tools that you have, given the fact that orders have to be issued and regulations have to be adopted. You mentioned compliance agreements and mediation.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that mediation has rarely been successful and that you have signed a compliance agreement, even though it is not clear with whom. Have you signed multiple agreements? Rather, how effective are the tools that you have, taking into account orders and new regulations? Do compliance agreements work at this point? In short, does mediation work?
Mr. Théberge: I would say that the new power that works the best is our discretion in approaching federal institutions to get them to take corrective action. Corrective action makes things much easier for everyone; the issue is immediately resolved.
I mentioned earlier that federal institutions are used to working with the office in a certain way. At first, they were told that they had the opportunity to enter into agreements and engage in mediation. The big challenge with mediation is the complainant. In most cases, complainants are not interested and often want to get a report or a tangible product in response to their complaint.
There have been very many compliance agreements this year. Every time one of them gets signed, they are better recognized as a good way to go about things, since they ensure compliance.
Senator Cormier: Briefly, what is a compliance agreement?
Mr. Théberge: It is a contract between the federal institution and me, the Commissioner, which states that we will follow a certain timeline to make a certain change to a particular situation to resolve the complaint, whether it concerns signage or internal policy, for example. The act’s purpose is to ensure more and better compliance.
We have tools at our disposal now. We used to issue recommendations instead, but their implementation depended on the goodwill of federal institutions, so it became important to diversify the options we had available.
Senator Cormier: When you talk about recommendations, you are talking about commissions of inquiry, and you are even suggesting that a study be conducted. What are the main challenges you face when it comes to compliance with the act for commissions of inquiry?
Mr. Théberge: Documents are not typically available in both official languages. Transcripts that are produced in one language or the other arrive far too late, and the commission is already over by the time a complaint is filed. That poses a problem: Once the commission no longer exists, who can we turn to?
Senator Cormier: What recourses do you have for remedying the situation?
Mr. Théberge: For example, one of the recommendations suggests that the Privy Council Office, or PCO, which is responsible for creating — not managing — commissions of inquiry, should ensure that the commission is properly equipped in terms of knowing its official language obligations.
Another recommendation was made to the House of Commons’ official languages committee to look into the matter, namely what types of practices could be instituted to avoid that kind of situation. Sometimes it is very quick, because the commission can last four or eight weeks, they produce the report and that is it, but these are often very important issues. For example, commissions such as the Foreign Interference Commission or the Public Order Emergency Commission are very important. I think that people have the right to communicate with the commissioner of those commissions in the official language of their choice and to have access to documents in both official languages.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Gerba: I would like to go back to penalties. In your annual report, you state that the power to impose penalties is a last resort. Could you tell us more about your position on that?
Mr. Théberge: From my perspective, administrative penalties are part of a spectrum of powers. Mediation and recommendations can be the starting point, followed by orders, but if nothing is working at the end of the day, it can be time for administrative monetary penalties.
In my experience, it is very useful to have these kinds of tools available, even if we never use them. For example, we have the ability to issue subpoenas. We have never done so, but every time we have mentioned that we could, we have managed to get the information requested. For that reason, it is important for us to have enforcement tools at our disposal.
We would obviously like to achieve greater compliance, and we would like the process to be more pleasant, but we did not have those powers in the past. We only had the power to issue recommendations, so I see this as a continuum. It should be noted that there are federal institutions that are very aware of their official languages obligations and do what is needed to fulfill them, but others are less cooperative in some cases.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: I will bring you to another topic. Bill C-13 has been in force for two years, and we are still waiting for the regulations and everything that comes with it. Where is the issue with the act? What are the minor fixes or annoyances in the act that would need to be changed?
Mr. Théberge: First, we are waiting for the regulations. Bill C-13 also did not necessarily meet all of our expectations. We had originally published a discussion paper in 2019, and many people worked on that bill, but we have found that if we want to use certain powers, for example, we have to go through a number of stages before we can implement them. That can lead to a very heavy administrative burden. We would like to ensure that the process for administrative penalties does not become so cumbersome that it becomes an obstacle in itself.
Second, the regulations were not tackled quickly enough. We are still waiting on them. The 2023 act has to be reviewed in exactly 10 years, which would take us to 2033. We are already at the end of 2025. Honestly, we are still at the very beginning, but we are still waiting.
I think I would like to see a greater commitment from certain institutions, whether it be the Treasury Board Secretariat or others, to move forward and to ensure better governance of the act. I do not think we necessarily have all the guidelines that are needed right now.
Senator Moncion: That is not necessarily a priority.
The Chair: I have a question related to services to our communities. If I understand correctly, the federal government has estimated that more than 700 offices will be newly designated as bilingual thanks to the new regulations. I imagine that part of the delay has to do with the wait for regulations, but could you tell us if you were consulted?
Mr. Théberge: The offices have already been identified. When I was talking earlier about delays in implementing the regulations, it was that the government wants to delay opening those offices. That is part of the Part IV regulations, which were revised in 2019, if I am not mistaken. It is 2025, and the government is just now moving on to implementation. It would be very good to quickly move forward with implementing those 700 service offices, since that is a significant increase. Another criterion that gets taken into account is vitality, that is to say, does a school exist?
If a francophone school exists, that is an area where services can be delivered, but the government is looking at delaying the opening of those offices.
The Chair: I am still using my three minutes. Do you have any concerns about the announced budget cuts? Could the delay increase or decrease?
Mr. Théberge: If I understand the Minister of Finance correctly, everything is on the table. Of course, I have some concerns about that. We have already suffered a number of delays. Delays never work in favour of communities. We already have enough challenges in our communities without always having to wait for the implementation of those service offices, which are extremely important for our communities.
Senator Poirier: I will just follow up on a couple of points we have discussed.
We also asked when we would have these regulations, but we did not get a concrete answer. Have you had any clues or information that we have not had or cannot have at this point? When do you expect the regulations to arrive?
Mr. Théberge: As I said earlier, in the fall.
Senator Poirier: It is fall.
Mr. Théberge: I stand by what Minister Guilbeault said in committee: that it would be in the fall, in the coming weeks. I find it vague to say that it will be in the next few weeks or the fall, but the importance of tabling those regulations as soon as possible seems very clear to me. The consultations will take 30 days. The committees need to look at the regulations to see if any changes should be made. It will soon be two and a half years.
Senator Poirier: I hope that everything goes well and that we receive all of that soon.
Mr. Théberge: I am on my way out!
Senator Poirier: Before you leave.
Senator Moncion: I have a question about a procedure that could be made available to Collège Nordique. I imagine that you are aware of the situation with this college, whose funding has been cut.
What kind of action could you take, or what kind of advice would you give to Collège Nordique so that it can use some of your powers to make the government understand that it is violating the Official Languages Act in promoting —
Mr. Théberge: We work on the basis of complaints. Is this situation serious enough to warrant filing a complaint, and would that complaint be admissible? We cannot do anything unless a complaint is filed.
Senator Moncion: Without saying so, you mean that the college would have to look at the environment and file a complaint that you could respond to as the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Mr. Théberge: If the complaint relates to the Official Languages Act, of course.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: We are worried about the government’s budget cuts and their potential impact on official languages. Should the federal government take specific measures as part of these budget cuts to protect official language communities? Should it adopt a particular approach and keep in mind certain considerations so as to avoid penalizing official language minority communities?
You mention delays. Delays mean setbacks. There are notions of catching up and the ongoing development of communities. Do you have any advice to give in that regard?
Mr. Théberge: Every federal institution has an obligation to ensure that its programs and policies do not have a negative impact on communities. If we are talking about cuts, there should be an impact analysis to determine whether there will be an impact on communities.
Senator Cormier: My understanding is that we can assume that the Government of Canada, which is responsible for enforcing the Official Languages Act, will have looked at these cuts in the upcoming budget, which will be tabled soon, through an official languages lens to ensure that there are no negative impacts on communities. Have I understood that right?
Mr. Théberge: You have understood very well what is supposed to happen.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much.
Senator Moncion: Hear, hear!
The Chair: I will wrap up by saying that your mandate has already been extended once, maybe twice, on an interim basis. Is there any information on another extension or a transition?
Mr. Théberge: That is quite simply in the hands of the Privy Council Office. There is a process in place. The minister referred to it during an appearance. I am not aware of those details; any questions should be referred to the Privy Council Office.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That concludes our discussion with the Commissioner of Official Languages. Thank you very much, Commissioner, and thank you to your team for being with us this evening. Thank you as well to the senators.
That concludes the public portion of our meeting this evening. Thank you very much.
(The committee continued in camera.)