THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, February 23, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on the regulatory framework of Part VII of the Official Languages Act; and, in camera, to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to official languages generally.
Senator Allister W. Surette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Before we begin, I would like to ask you to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones. The microphones will be managed by the console operator, so please do not touch them. Thank you for your co‑operation.
I am Allister Surette. I am a senator from Nova Scotia. I will now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
Senator Cormier: Good day. René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Patterson: Rebecca Patterson, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick. Welcome.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
We are pleased to welcome our guests this evening, as well as everyone watching us online at sencanada.ca.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on October 8, we are examining the regulatory framework of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
To that end, this evening we welcome representatives from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Carsten Quell, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat; Annie Proulx, Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer; and Martine Boucher, Senior Manager, Part VII Regulations, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer.
Good evening, welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation. As you know, you have approximately five minutes for your opening statement, which will be followed by a 90‑minute question and answer period. If I’m not mistaken, Mr. Quell will give the opening statement.
Carsten Quell, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[English]
It is a pleasure to be here today to speak with you about the draft regulations for the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The tabling on December 9 of last year by the President of the Treasury Board of draft regulations for the implementation of Part VII of the act marked an important milestone in the modernization of Canada’s framework for official languages.
[Translation]
The main objective of the regulations is to create a common framework to ensure the comprehensive and effective implementation of the commitments set out in Part VII by over 180 federal institutions, regardless of their size or mandate.
The law requires federal institutions, in carrying out their mandate, to take positive measures to, among other things, enhance the vitality and development of English-speaking and French-speaking minority communities; foster the full recognition and use of both official languages in Canadian society; protect and promote French throughout Canada, including in Quebec; and advance quality learning opportunities in the minority language, from early childhood to post-secondary education.
[English]
To develop the draft regulations, the Treasury Board Secretariat consulted more than 23 organizations representing francophone minority communities, 17 organizations representing Quebec’s English-speaking communities, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and, of course, federal institutions. We also maintained a dialogue with representatives of the provinces and territories as well as with Indigenous groups.
[Translation]
In total, we held more than 60 meetings, including about ten with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne and with the organization Talking.Advocating.Living in Québec, or TALQ.
To understand what has changed, we are trying to put ourselves in the shoes of federal institutions and public servants responsible for developing new programs, policies or initiatives. Institutions and public servants must now undertake an analysis to determine the impact that the new program, policy or initiative could have on commitments set out under Part VII.
This means that they must first determine whether the minority language communities or other stakeholders are affected. They must then examine the positive measures that could support stakeholders’ priorities and objectives. They must establish assessment and oversight mechanisms that will allow them to evaluate the success of the measures being implemented.
This analysis must also — and stakeholders said this was an extremely important point — take into consideration the uniqueness and diversity of English- and French-speaking minority communities in Canada.
Everything I have just mentioned was not previously an obligation or part of a clearly defined process.
What is new? As part of their analysis, institutions and public servants must consult with stakeholders on official languages. They must give reasonable notice about consultation activities and provide stakeholders with a summary and an opportunity to provide input.
[English]
If it is anticipated that developing a program policy or initiative could have a direct negative impact on the commitments set out in Part VII, the same process applies — analysis, consultation, documentation. When they negotiate an agreement with the province or territory that could contribute to Part VII commitments, the same process applies once again — analysis, consultation, documentation. The institution must propose to the province or territory linguistic clauses based on this analysis. These clauses must include evaluation and monitoring mechanisms.
When they establish evaluation and monitoring mechanisms for the positive measures taken, the draft regulations require that these mechanisms allow federal institutions to assess their impact on Part VII commitments. That includes the effects on the priorities of French- and English-speaking minority communities and other stakeholders. It also covers key areas like how the public values both official languages, support for sectors that are essential to community vitality, and the protection and promotion of strong community institutions.
[Translation]
The draft regulations do not focus solely on processes; they also target results. The Treasury Board Secretariat will closely monitor the performance of federal institutions and the measures they implement. It will then provide parliamentarians with reports on how these institutions perform with regard to the official languages.
[English]
The regulations are not the only instrument that will ensure the vision and obligations of the new Part VII take shape. In fact, we have consulted stakeholders — including the national organizations representing English and French speakers in a minority context — on a range of tools that we have developed. They include guidelines for dialogue and consultations, activities with linguistic minorities and other stakeholders or, for example, a self-assessment tool for Part VII implementation.
As we appear before you today, we also want to indicate where we are in the process of making these regulations.
[Translation]
The tabling of the draft regulations is part of a legislated process. We are currently consulting with parliamentary committees. This stage will be followed by public consultations. We will collect and carefully review comments from this committee, stakeholders, and the public to improve the regulations.
Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you. We will move to the question and answer period. Each senator will have approximately five minutes, including the answers, if possible. We will start with a first round, but there will be a second round if need be.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentation and for joining us yet again.
I have a few questions and I will speak more during the second round if there is enough time.
How did the collaboration between the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister responsible for Official Languages come about during the drafting of the proposed regulations? What was Treasury Board’s role in the drafting process with Canadian Heritage?
Mr. Quell: As required by law, we are working with our colleagues at Canadian Heritage to develop the regulations. We are responsible for making and developing the regulations. Over the past two years, as part of the process, we have been in weekly contact regarding the draft regulations.
Senator Poirier: How do the proposed regulations strike a balance between the expectations of official language minority communities and the obligations of federal institutions?
Mr. Quell: The regulations specify the terms and conditions for implementing the act. The aim of the consultations we conducted with federal institutions, stakeholders from official language minority communities and others was to develop a clear understanding of stakeholder expectations and the reality of federal institutions in order to develop regulations that will contribute to the full implementation of the obligations under the new Part VII.
Senator Poirier: We heard the following concern from witnesses who appeared in recent weeks. In the absence of clear definitions of the terms “positive measures,” “negative impact” and “strong institution,” in your opinion, will the results that federal institutions need to achieve to implement Part VII be consistent and comparable? If not, why not?
Mr. Quell: I would invite my colleagues to supplement my response. Legally, we are unable to define any terms in the regulations that are not already defined in the act. We cannot create definitions of “positive measures.” Of course, there are existing practices and examples. Part VII is not new. We are building on existing realities to come up with measures to address the four elements set out in the new Part VII, which I listed at the beginning of my remarks.
I would invite my colleagues to add to my answer.
Martine Boucher, Senior Manager, Part VII Regulations, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Indeed, as Mr. Quell mentioned, regulatory powers do not allow us to define certain terms in the regulations that are not included in the act. However, subsection 41(6) of the act provides clarification on positive measures by stating, for example, that they shall be concrete and taken with the intention of having a beneficial effect on the government’s commitments.
In addition, examples of positive measures may be addressed in the policy instruments or complementary tools referred to earlier. The Treasury Board Secretariat will ensure that stakeholders are consulted on the content of these additional instruments and tools as they are developed.
Senator Poirier: We met with the FCFA and various groups who expressed concerns that the definition was unclear. They wondered how we could ensure institutions adopt comparable measures. Don’t you see this as a problem?
Mr. Quell: The implementation of positive measures is linked to the mandate of each federal institution. Each federal institution, within the framework of its mandate, must consider what positive measures it can take. Of course, realities and mandates vary. It may be useful to note that the regulations set out a process by which to achieve results, while respecting the principle that it is up to each federal institution to reflect on its mandate in order to consult with stakeholders, engage in dialogue and learn about priorities. When taking or planning positive measures, they must consult and verify that they meet the needs of minority communities and other stakeholders.
Senator Cormier: Welcome to the committee today. In preparing for this meeting — and I am undoubtedly not the only one who has done so — I reread all the recommendations that have been made since 2019, whether by the Commissioner of Official Languages, in our 2019 report, or in the four rulings of the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal on Part VII and during consultations on the Official Languages Act. In light of all the recommendations, one wonders how you will manage to incorporate them. After the draft regulations were tabled, TALQ appeared before the committee and stated that they represented a positive step forward in the process, but that they did not directly demonstrate how the results would be achieved and measured.
The FCFA has made numerous recommendations, and I will focus on one in particular, which is somewhat related to what you said earlier. The FCFA proposes adding a statement of purpose — the commissioner referred to a preamble — to clarify the context and legal concepts surrounding the Part VII obligations, including the nature of positive measures that must be based on the principle of substantive equality, and to integrate this statement of purpose into the main mandate of departments so that it is central to their programs and policies rather than being secondary.
This statement follows the senator’s question about how departments will fulfill this responsibility if it is not directly integrated into their core mandate. How will the draft regulations take into account this important recommendation from various organizations, including the Commissioner of Official Languages?
Mr. Quell: We received briefs from the FCFA and TALQ, and another brief is probably being prepared by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The purpose of the process we are currently engaged in is to take all of this input into account. After that, we will see what can be done. We are, of course, limited by the regulatory powers granted to us by law, but we understand the desire to have a purpose. We are in contact with the Department of Justice to see to what extent the regulations can have a purpose. For now, we are taking these proposals into account and will then see what can be achieved in the next version of the regulations.
Senator Cormier: At what point in the process will we find out that they have been integrated?
Mr. Quell: At this time, we plan to consider comments from parliamentary committees. We also plan to conduct a public consultation. Our intention is to review all proposals and then submit them to the Governor in Council for the final version of the regulations.
Senator Cormier: At a committee in the other place, MP Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault asked you a question about language clauses, which is an important issue for OLMCs. He asked you whether it was possible to define minimum content or criteria for drafting these clauses in the proposed regulations. You replied that you were limited by the framework provided by the enabling legislation.
However, subsection 41(10.4)(b) of the Official Languages Act explicitly states that the regulations may govern the content of such provisions. Can you clarify the reasons why the draft bill cannot provide for minimum content, as you stated elsewhere?
Mr. Quell: We have taken note of the member’s suggestion. As with any other suggestion, we will consider the extent to which the powers provided by law can be implemented in the regulations.
Senator Cormier: What I’m hearing is that you are not sure what can and cannot be included. We are not reassured by the general answers you are providing: meaning that if it is not in the act, it does not apply in the regulations. People are in a vacuum; they’re wondering what will be in the regulations and how you will improve them.
I am looking for more specific information about what you will be able to do in concrete terms, in light of a response like this, which I more or less understand.
Mr. Quell: The provision you mention . . . I take your comment to express your interest in seeing to what extent the language clauses could be more specific. This will be part of the work we will be doing for the next version of the draft regulations.
Senator Cormier: We are talking about regulatory silence. There are elements I find surprising, such as the periodic estimates, and the fact that rights holders under section 23 are not included in the regulations or in the considerations regarding the strategy for the disposal of federal real property and assets. The responsibilities assigned to certain departments, beyond your department and Canadian Heritage, such as Global Affairs Canada or IRCC — it is an important department — are not there. Why? You mentioned implementation procedures, but is that why they are not included? These are departments that are responsible for the Official Languages Act, are they not?
Mr. Quell: Indeed, these departments are responsible. The purpose of the regulations is precisely to set out the procedures for implementing the act. There are a variety of mandates. The question is whether the regulations should reflect the specific mandates of certain departments. We hear this suggestion and, once again, we will examine the extent to which this could be reflected in the regulations.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Patterson: I’m going to go into the consultations that we talked about. We have had other witnesses — and I will talk about the anglophone minority in Quebec, through TALQ — who have provided letters saying that the consultation would take in one community but communities are very different. I would suggest that would also apply to minority francophone communities as well.
So I will ask you a very bureaucratic question first; I am going to ask you about the GBA Plus you did on this in order to determine how you were going to conduct your consultations, recognizing they are still ongoing, and, especially for TALQ, how have you addressed the vast differences in anglophone communities? So rather than treating them as a hegemony of one, how have you looked at GBA Plus? That’s part one.
Mr. Quell: On GBA Plus — unless my co-witnesses here have specific information — I might have to come back to you. But as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have definitely held more than 10 intense meetings with TALQ where they have identified the particular concerns that they have. We know with regard to FTP agreements that they are particularly interested in that aspect of the regulation. So if you are asking how did we take account of their specificity, it was in that context that we learned about the importance of the federal-provincial relations that TALQ is engaged in.
Senator Patterson: Would anybody else like to provide a response? I know you are federal and so you have done a GBA Plus analysis, but I would be curious, because these are kind of some of the questions we have. You do not have an easy job. Please know that we understand that. If it is possible to do a follow-up, we would greatly appreciate it.
Then the next thing I was thinking about is that even between English minority and French linguistic minority communities, there are different needs. I know that regulations are high level and it can be one of the challenges. I am curious how you are seeing this play out to now, meaning that there are different needs and not just because they are a minority language community. As you are drafting your regulations — and yes, it is tied to the GBA Plus question — I am just curious how and what you have heard so far and what your thinking is.
Mr. Quell: Mr. Chair, the realities of minority communities are diverse and so are the mandates of federal institutions. When we look at the new Part VII, we see that it touches on different aspects of what was in the previous Part VII, but with new components such as promotion and protection of French.
As federal institutions think about the positive measures that they need to take, they need to take a look at all of the possibilities under the new Part VII and also consider to what extent they can take measures that are complementary in nature in terms of fulfilling the commitments under Part VII. In particular, I am thinking about questions that we have been asked how a federal institution can promote and protect the French language while at the same time supporting the vitality of the English-speaking communities of Quebec. For us, this is not one or the other. It is in the complementarity of achieving both that federal action should be taken.
Senator Patterson: I have a very short follow-up question. So that I am clear, we talk about protecting French and supporting the vitality. Are they synonyms for the same thing, or are we protecting English in Quebec? Because I know it is a challenging space to be in. The equity, I guess.
Mr. Quell: Mr. Chair, if we consider the new Part VII, we see that we are committed to both supporting and enhancing the vitality of linguistic minority communities while at the same time protecting and promoting the French language including in Quebec. These are the commitments under the new Part VII, and federal institutions can use the various means at their disposal to develop positive measures where — again, those are not in contradiction for us — the for English-speaking communities of Quebec, their vitality can be supported while we also ensure that the French language is protected and promoted in Quebec.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I would like to talk about the consultations.
To what extent did you consult the provinces and territories? Moreover, when did you make the results of these consultations public?
Mr. Quell: We had a working group with the provinces and territories, but I will turn to my colleague Annie and ask her to respond.
Annie Proulx, Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Indeed, a working group was set up with our provincial and territorial partners. There were a number of meetings in various forums, including with the Government of Quebec, as well as with associations representing all the provinces. These discussions were useful, as were those we had with community stakeholders, since they are examining the issue of provisions in agreements with the provinces and territories.
I would say it is a close and sustained collaborative effort.
Senator Gerba: Right. At our previous meeting, several organizations expressed doubts about the ability of federal institutions to clearly distinguish between the obligations set out in subsections 41(1) and 41(2) of the Official Languages Act. Can you reassure us about the ability of federal institutions to meet the obligations set out in these provisions?
Ms. Proulx: We also discussed our draft regulations with federal institutions. They did mention certain challenges for some of them. However, it is up to the deputy head of each institution to ensure they have the capacity to implement these obligations and it is on this basis that we are moving forward with the development of the draft regulations.
That said, the Treasury Board Secretariat also plays a supporting role in guiding, coordinating and assisting federal institutions and those responsible for implementing Part VII. Through these support activities, it is also possible to gauge the progress of certain institutions that are having more difficulty, while replicating good practices that are being implemented in certain institutions and facilitating this exchange to support those needing more assistance.
Senator Gerba: Do I still have a minute?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Gerba: What do you think of the FCFA’s suggestion to review the regulations every five years instead of every ten years?
Mr. Quell: The act sets out its own review every ten years. That is why — I will be very frank — we have stipulated that the regulations should be reviewed at the same interval. We have taken note of the FCFA’s proposal and will analyze it.
Senator Moncion: During your appearance on February 12, 2026, before the official languages committee of the other place, you said there might be an opportunity to consider the following proposals: adding a statement of purpose to the regulations, making the analyses conducted by federal institutions public and clarifying the terms and conditions for collecting or using evidence to inform analyses done by federal institutions. Could you provide us with more context regarding these different possibilities or your openness to such changes?
Mr. Quell: We have duly noted the proposals from the other place; we are collecting and analyzing them. Some of the proposals were made during previous consultations; some are new, such as the addition of an item that was not raised during the statutory consultations we held when preparing the draft regulations. I invite my colleagues to chime in here; however, at this point, we only want to gather comments and analyze them to see to what extent these proposals can or cannot be reflected in the final version of the regulations.
Senator Moncion: Let’s assume you have made an attempt to keep an open mind, does that just mean you are gathering comments and will eventually decide whether to include them?
Mr. Quell: We are taking note of the proposals, analyzing them, and, based on the analysis of legal and other considerations, we will determine how our being open to including these proposals could translate into inclusion in or amendments to the regulations.
Senator Moncion: Thank you. Since the regulations are vague and lack sufficient detail, the FCFA’s comments are interesting because they call for the elimination of the grey areas in the current regulations. We are asking you to clarify the positive measures in relation to the negative measures and to specify the terms and conditions for implementing these positive measures. We are therefore talking about clarifying ambiguities, providing for the adoption of action plans, providing for monitoring obligations, defining ambiguous concepts, and specifying consultation activities.
Many things then are linked to concrete issues, due to the vague nature of the regulations. The obligation to collect and publish evidence goes back to one of the comments I made to you, namely to clarify the goals of the consultations, specify the steps, evaluation mechanisms, performance indicators, and indicators between federal instructions and communities, so that monitoring can take place. You collect the information, but there is this whole aspect that does not exist within the regulations, and that is probably where the problem lies, not only for the FCFA, but for virtually all stakeholders. It is a matter of clarifying concepts and the ambiguity that exists within the regulations. Can you tell us about these two concepts? Is there a clear intent to change anything in order to provide such clarification and adopt a better approach to monitoring the positive or negative results associated with the regulations?
Mr. Quell: The regulations were carefully drafted to set out the terms and conditions for enforcing the act, which are similar to the terms and conditions for its implementation. That was our intention. There was certainly no point in remaining ambiguous or leaving any grey areas.
You have the regulations before you, which create new obligations for federal institutions that did not exist before. In terms of results, there are oversight and accountability mechanisms that do not currently exist, and we firmly believe that these measures will lead to compliance, which will improve the new Part VII.
If I may, I would add that we are currently evaluating the FCFA’s brief. We are looking at the definition of concepts. I mentioned the regulatory power the act grants us. We know that action plans exist in several departments. Is it useful to make them mandatory or not? That depends on the institution. Some institutions have thousands or even tens of thousands of employees. There are also very small institutions that sometimes face challenges in terms of accountability. Furthermore, giving them the same tools as a large institution can be problematic.
What we want is inspired implementation for every federal institution with questions. Are we developing tools? We have consulted with stakeholders on the tools we are developing to guide federal institutions, so there will be diversity and customization to ensure proper implementation.
I will conclude by talking about the purpose of the consultations, as was mentioned. If we look at the regulations, they contain very clear provisions on how consultations and dialogue should proceed.
The Chair: Before moving on to the second round, on this specific issue, if I can follow on your last answer . . . . If I understand correctly, you said in your opening statement that the terms cannot be defined unless they are already defined in the act, including the positive measures, negative impacts, strong institutions, formal learning, and so on. The act came into force more than 30 months ago, in June 2023. We are now trying to adopt the regulations, several months later. If I understand correctly, in order to reassure our communities and organizations, in order for every federal institution to understand exactly what these terms mean, you will be conducting further consultations to develop guidelines so that everyone affected by the act understands what exactly these terms mean?
Mr. Quell: That is correct. If we use the Part IV regulations as an example, there are the regulations but also a directive to support them. There are also guides and tools to support the directive. As mentioned in the consultations, we intend to develop a directive to support the regulations. A Treasury Board directive is mandatory and can force federal institutions to develop more processes than needed. We intend to move forward with consultations on this policy instrument.
The Chair: To clarify, the current consultation process to adopt the Part VII regulations will end, and then another consultation process to develop the guidelines will begin.
Mr. Quell: Treasury Board’s policy instruments are designed to ensure consultation with stakeholders. I understand the impatience on one side, but I would also like to appeal to the need to . . . . Let me give you an example. We developed six or seven tools to support Part VII of the act. These tools already exist and can be consulted on our website. We have already moved forward. However, we need to simultaneously call on stakeholders to provide us with feedback. We are impatient too and want to see the new Part VII move forward; at the same time, however, we must ensure that the measures we take and the tools and guidelines we put forward meet the expectations and interests of both sides.
The Chair: My last question on this subject concerns the parliamentary consultation process currently in place. The rules stipulate 30 sitting days in the House of Commons. If I am not mistaken, I believe this period ends on March 27. Are you going to extend this period? Do you plan to keep this deadline or extend it, since you are waiting for recommendations from our committee or others before concluding the process?
Mr. Quell: That is up to the Governor-in-Council. Mr. Chair, you will understand that this is the minimum period required for adoption, but it is up to the government to decide when it wants to finalize the regulations.
Senator Poirier: Before I ask my next question, I will continue along the same lines.
If I understand correctly, you said Treasury Board is responsible for verifying whether federal institutions are following the directives and objectives, of which there are many. Will you be following up on this? Will you ensure this is done? Do you have a process in place to follow up and determine what they are using, especially given that there is no definition? Are you going to do something? Do you have that authority? If so, how will you do it?
Mr. Quell: I will respond first. I will ask my colleague to speak about measures relating to monitoring.
Mr. Chair, we have a very sophisticated monitoring system in place. I referred to one of these mechanisms, namely the annual reports on official languages. Over a two-year cycle, all federal institutions must report their achievements with respect to the act to Treasury Board. As my colleague mentioned, the deputy heads are responsible for ensuring that their institution complies with the act. However, Treasury Board requests evidence of this. It is a two-year cycle.
There are also some 40 institutions that must report to Treasury Board each year. Since the 2023–2024 cycle, the annual report of the President of the Treasury Board, which is our responsibility, has included the measures set out in Part VII.
Ms. Boucher: I think that is a fairly comprehensive answer. The questions included in the annual reports are based on the requirements found in policy instruments, the act and the regulations. The questions are fairly specific and must relate to a specific requirement.
Senator Poirier: Are you prepared to review or reinforce the regulations if, once implemented, they do not produce the expected results?
Mr. Quell: If I understand correctly, are we prepared to reinforce the regulations if the expected results —
Senator Poirier: Exactly. Are you prepared to review or reinforce the regulations if there is evidence that they do not achieve the expected results for our groups or communities?
Mr. Quell: This is somewhat similar to the issue of the ten‑year review of the act and the regulations. It is clear that all regulations need to be reviewed at some point. I can talk about the Part IV regulations, which were adopted in 2019. It is now 2026, and we are approaching 2029, when we will report to Parliament on the assessments conducted concerning the implementation of these regulations. In all honesty, of course, there are procedures or facts that arise during the implementation of regulations that may require reflection. We are keeping a list that will help us review the regulations the next time we have the opportunity to do so.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: If I understand the nature of your presence here correctly, essentially you’re here to gather comments. Don’t take my comment as cynicism, but is that why the minister refused to appear before this committee when ye was summoned?
I regret that the minister can’t be here. The draft regulations are very important for our communities. I know this isn’t your bailiwick, but I think the message needs to be conveyed. The ministers we summon don’t come here; they don’t come to meet with us about these regulations.
That said, to continue with the comments and recommendations, the Commissioner of Official Languages made his position public during the preliminary consultations. He started from five guiding principles, so I imagine you’re taking that into account.
The principles are as follows: to uphold the principles established in the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Canada (Employment and Social Development), including supporting community development, applying the standard of substantive equality, recognizing the ongoing nature of the obligation, understanding the needs of communities, and understanding the obligation not to cause harm; to apply Part VII to an unlimited number of situations; to provide clear instructions to all federal institutions so that they take concrete action; and to set benchmarks applicable to all programs, policies, initiatives and decisions of federal institutions. This aligns with the FCFA’s proposal, which is to ensure that a framework clearly outlining responsibilities is put in place within each federal institution, and to ensure greater transparency and accountability regarding the measures taken.
What I understood from your answer to my colleague Senator Poirier’s question is that, obviously, federal institutions produce annual reports and must answer a number of questions. That’s what determines whether or not they’re complying with their obligations.
How do you verify and ensure that the information provided is adequate? As it stands, the federal institutions themselves define whether they are complying with the act. So no one is checking in any way whether the answers they provide are adequate and compliant.
I understand that there are institutions of different sizes, and I also understand that there are challenges within federal institutions. However, you will understand that there are also significant challenges in official language communities.
Mr. Quell: With respect to the Commissioner of Official Languages’ proposals, even though I’m not a lawyer, I’d still like to point out that the duty not to cause harm — the principle from the decision in Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Canada (Employment and Social Development) that you mentioned — reflects the previous state of the act. We now have a new Part VII, and the regulations are based on this new updated version of the act.
As for the issue of setting benchmarks and providing a framework for federal institutions, that is precisely what the regulations are trying to do. I can go a little further and explain what the Treasury Board Secretariat actually does to support federal institutions.
After the new act was passed, we created a network that brings together each federal institution, as well as people responsible for Part VII. They are called PRP-7s.
Senator Cormier: Champions?
Mr. Quell: In fact, there are several ways of working with federal institutions. You’re right; there are the official languages champions. That network exists and continues to exist. However, operationally speaking, we have people responsible for Parts IV, V and VI, and others at Canadian Heritage who are responsible for Part VII.
Our role is to equip these people with the guidance tools I mentioned, so they can understand their new responsibilities, and in turn help us to better understand the institutional realities of the federal government.
Senator Cormier: Where do these individuals fit into the federal government? Obviously, you’ll understand that if they don’t have any real influence, it’s often a challenge. That’s why we were asking for ministers to appear, and that it not be only assistant deputy ministers or deputy ministers who testify.
Where are these people situated, and how can you reassure us about their ability to influence the federal government?
Mr. Quell: The role of the teams responsible for Part VII is at the operational level. The idea is to work with the official languages champions, who serve as the conscience of official languages at the decision-making table of an institution. The two should work together so that once the new regulations are in place, when the institution makes a decision or develops a new program, policy or initiative, there are processes in each department so that an analysis is carried out and the necessary consultations are done.
Senator Cormier: Is that the partnership initiative, or is that something else?
Mr. Quell: The partnership initiative is part of the action plan and is done in collaboration with Canadian Heritage. You are right that it’s another initiative.
Senator Cormier: Does the architecture implemented within the system actually allow the compliance requirements and needs to be demonstrated and measured?
Mr. Quell: There is the Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers on Official Languages, which, together with the Council of the Network of the Official Languages Champions and the people working at the operational level, ensures that there is clarity around responsibilities, obligations and opportunities to achieve the objectives of the act.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: You mentioned the size of the different departments. Some have a lot of employees, while others have fewer. You talked about their ability to collect data.
Data collection is necessary to be able to see what’s working and what’s not, to see which departments are meeting expectations or not, and to know how many calls or requests they may be receiving or not.
There is software available to do these calculations. Whatever the case, there are tools out there, and yet asking for evidence always becomes a problem. Is it a lack of will, a lack of resources, a lack of interest? It could be all three.
How is it that we don’t have access to this data? No matter which department we speak to or what the subject is, getting data is always a challenge for us. Why is the Canadian government so poorly equipped to collect data, when we have smartphones that capture all our data?
Why is it so difficult for the federal government to collect this data so that analyses can be done? There are all kinds of excuses. I’m not trying to assign blame. I’m talking about the infrastructure surrounding data. We know that those who master data are leaders in a whole range of areas.
What are your comments on that?
Mr. Quell: What was the question?
Senator Moncion: Why is it such a challenge when it comes to data? You mentioned the different sizes of the departments earlier. Regardless of the department, tools are available to collect data. Why is the federal government incapable of doing that? Why is a lack of resources cited when all kinds of tools are available?
Mr. Quell: I don’t quite agree with the statement that there is a lack of data. We get information from Statistics Canada, for instance. Minority sample studies provide some pretty significant data, which we use when planning measures to support all beneficiaries under Part VII and to address all the objectives of the act.
My colleagues may have something to add. I’m not sure.
Senator Moncion: You are able, then, to gather evidence-based findings to examine federal institutions and the decision-making process in any department. They can provide us with information on their French-language services and the types of services they have delivered and so forth. Is that right?
Mr. Quell: Again, under the act, deputy heads are responsible for their institutions. It is up to them to access evidence-based findings that will help them address official languages considerations.
In terms of services to Canadians, for instance, every year, we receive information from the departments on how they fulfill that obligation. Some have mystery shopper programs to help them measure how successful they are at providing the service.
I can only speak to the data we work with. Certainly, more information is always desirable, but we do have a fairly wide range of data.
Senator Moncion: It wouldn’t be hard, then, to make federal institutions collect data pertaining to the draft regulations. That’s what you seem to be saying. Publishing the departmental data would also be easy, it seems.
Ms. Proulx: As we know, for years, our Canadian Heritage colleagues have been responsible for collecting data on official language minority communities. The same is true for our Statistics Canada colleagues. Those data are available and are used by the departments.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
The Chair: If I understand correctly, nothing in the regulations deals with research or evidence-based findings?
Ms. Boucher: Not exclusively. Basically, the regulations are consistent with what’s in the act. They play a complementary role. The act stipulates that institutions must rely on evidence-based findings, but all relevant proposals and recommendations are also taken into account.
Senator Gerba: I want to follow up on the consultations one more time. I noted that you consulted with 17 English-speaking communities in Quebec. Is that right? Do you have a list of the organizations?
Ms. Proulx: We don’t have it with us, but there is a list. We could share it with the committee, of course.
Senator Gerba: I’d also like to know whether the organizations differed in their ability to participate in the consultations.
Mr. Quell: We can provide you with the list of organizations that were consulted.
Senator Gerba: All right. Did all the organizations have the same ability or capacity to participate in the consultations? Do you have a sense of how the 17 organizations made out in relation to other groups?
Mr. Quell: On our end, we made every possible effort to contact organizations that represent English-speaking communities in Quebec. Usually, we met with them via Zoom or Teams, so by video conference. To begin with, we tried to make the process as easy as possible for any organization interested in providing feedback on the draft regulations.
Senator Gerba: Can you send us the results of the process? Did you do a quality comparison or assessment of the organizations’ ability to answer the questions?
Mr. Quell: We can get back to you on that in writing.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Senator Poirier: Somewhat along the same lines, can you tell us which of TALQ’s and the FCFA’s recommendations you ruled out and why? They are two of the organizations you consulted.
Mr. Quell: In response to your question, what we added to the regulations is that the analyses federal institutions conduct must take into account the uniqueness and diversity of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada, and that the analyses must determine positive measures that may address the priorities of the English or French linguistic minority communities or other stakeholders and the specific goals of those measures.
Furthermore, the analyses must take into account how a potential positive measure may contribute to the implementation of the commitments set out in Part VII, including in the following key areas: fostering acceptance and appreciation of both English and French by members of the public; restoring and increasing the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities; and supporting sectors essential to the vitality of official language minority communities, and protecting and promoting strong institutions.
The draft regulations also distinguish between dialogue activities, which are ongoing, and consultation activities, which are more targeted. In addition, the draft regulations provide that the language provisions include evaluation and monitoring mechanisms to ensure implementation, and that the evaluation and monitoring mechanisms allow federal institutions to assess the effects of the measures taken to implement the commitments in Part VII and the effects on the priorities of the English or French linguistic minority communities or other stakeholders.
Everything I just mentioned comes from recommendations —
Senator Poirier: Sorry if I’ve misunderstood, but I’m not quite sure how your answer relates to the question.
What I wanted to know is this: Which recommendations received from the FCFA and TALQ during the consultations did you reject? Did you reject all the things you just listed and why?
Ms. Boucher: Some recommendations were incorporated; they weren’t rejected.
Senator Poirier: Were they rejected or not rejected?
Ms. Boucher: They were included in the draft regulations.
Senator Poirier: How many recommendations did you reject and why? As I recall, witnesses told us that their recommendations had not been taken up.
Mr. Quell: We took note of all the feedback and recommendations we received, and the things I just listed are amendments that were made further to the consultations and stakeholder recommendations.
Senator Poirier: However, those stakeholder recommendations did not necessarily come from the FCFA or TALQ.
Mr. Quell: We consulted extensively. We did indeed hear from numerous organizations, but the FCFA and TALQ were clearly two of the most consulted and significant organizations we engaged with.
Senator Poirier: I see.
Mr. Quell: The list I just gave you largely reflects the input provided by those two organizations.
Senator Poirier: I see.
Senator Cormier: You just mentioned dialogue and consultation. Obviously, here’s the first question that comes to mind: What’s the difference between dialogue and consultation? The whole matter of definitions is a challenge. You addressed the issue, you took note of the comments and you say that you can’t put something in the regulations that isn’t defined in the act.
Now, there is a series of definitions. As lovers of the French language, we’d like to know what is behind the words. What, then, does “dialogue” mean? What does “consultation” mean? What do you mean by that, given that the public can be consulted in a multitude of ways? We appreciate that you want to give the institutions some latitude to make their own decisions, but more clarity is needed.
The draft regulations define an “initiative” as a significant action implemented by one or more federal institutions. That action is different from a program or policy. Concretely speaking, what does “significant action” mean, to help us understand? A federal institution reading that also needs to be able to understand whether something it’s doing is a significant action or not. If I decide to go to Puerto Vallarta on vacation — which I wouldn’t do right now — I may consider it a significant action. Could you please provide some clarification?
Mr. Quell: I believe your question had two parts. With respect to initiatives and significant actions, I would ask my colleagues to comment.
I would, however, like to address the matter of dialogue versus consultation. Precisely because of stakeholders’ comments and recommendations, we distinguished between a dialogue activity — an activity that, first and foremost, should help federal institutions understand stakeholders’ priorities — and a consultation activity, which concerns a specific activity. Consultations are thus more targeted. We added the requirement to keep a record of the consultations and to give stakeholders the opportunity to provide feedback. That’s an example of something we took into account.
Senator Cormier: Do you consult on the basis of an element you are advocating? In other words, do you consult on an idea that you would like to incorporate?
Mr. Quell: For example, when a federal institution develops a new program, policy or initiative, it has to consult on the positive measures that may be taken.
Senator Cormier: In this situation, does dialogue come before consultation? In this case, dialogue is used to seek feedback and ascertain people’s concerns. If you want to roll out a program, I would think you undertake dialogue before consultation.
Mr. Quell: That’s exactly right. Dialogue is to help the institutions understand the overall reality and needs of stakeholders and communities.
Senator Cormier: Are any such directives built into institutions’ plans? If I’m part of an institution and I know I first have to engage in a dialogue with the community before putting in place a program that I will consult on, the logic seems obvious. That’s what we are also trying to understand, the mechanics of it all.
Mr. Quell: I’m glad you asked. We’ve actually developed tools and guidance to help. Dialogue days are a tool that exists already, and they are helpful because they are an opportunity for federal institutions to meet with representatives of minority communities to understand their needs and particular characteristics. The institution can then examine the information and reflect on the positive measures and concrete actions that it can take. Yes, dialogue is established first, and then consultations are carried out.
I’d like to ask my colleague to provide more information, if I may.
Ms. Proulx: You asked about the use of the term “initiative.” We were able to define it in the regulations because it’s a term that appears only in the regulations. According to the draft regulations, an initiative is a significant action, other than a program or policy, of a temporary or permanent nature that is initiated and implemented by one or more federal institutions in carrying out their mandate. Actions related to the management of their personnel and their administrative services are excluded.
Senator Cormier: You may think I’m harping on this, but since it wasn’t in the act, now you’ve decided that you can define the term in the regulations. Is that what you’re saying? If you can do it for that, why can’t you do it for “positive measures” or other terms?
Ms. Proulx: In the case of “initiative,” the term isn’t used in the act. In the other cases —
Senator Cormier: It’s used in the act, so you can’t provide a definition. All right. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Patterson: My comment will be pretty quick. When you went through the list and you talked about how you established the criteria within your tools, I think you have actually answered my GBA Plus question, so I don’t think I need feedback on that. I know you are disappointed to hear me say that, but thank you. You did lay out how you consulted with the communities and then started to create the tools, which would then pick that up, so thank you. That’s it.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: On December 8, 2022, the then Minister of Official Languages, the Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, announced that the regulations would clarify what positive measures meant. The brings us back to Senator Cormier’s point. Where in the regulations is “positive measures” clearly defined?
Mr. Quell: I believe the senator is referring to a quote I don’t have in front of me, so it’s hard to comment on that. I can say, however, that regulatory authority, such that it is, prevents a term that is not defined in the act from being defined in the regulations.
Senator Moncion: The minister at the time, your boss, I believe . . . Oh, you’re at Treasury Board, and she was at the department responsible for official languages, so you had a different boss. All right. Thank you.
The Chair: We have to wait for the directives to get those definitions as well. That’s the only way around it, is it not?
Senator Moncion: [Technical difficulties]
The Chair: It’s a bit odd that a term not defined in the act can’t be defined in the regulations, but that a term can be defined if it isn’t in the act. The only way to deal with that is through the directives.
Senator Poirier: If we find it complicated, imagine how complicated it must be for communities.
The Chair: I have one last question. We haven’t talked a lot about language clauses, and it’s unclear to many what the draft regulations define as an agreement requiring language clauses. It’s assumed that the broader agreements with the provinces and territories have to include language clauses, but when it comes to minority language communities and agreements on early childhood development, health and immigration, is there a clear requirement to include clauses? Are they necessary for all agreements?
Mr. Quell: I’m going to defer to my colleague on that. First, though, I want to say that, pursuant to the regulations, an agreement negotiated with a province or territory whose purpose relates to Part VII requires that analysis be carried out to determine how the federal institution may take measures or propose language clauses to the other party to the agreement.
Ms. Boucher: The obligation in the act seeks to promote the inclusion of language clauses. The requirement can’t be established in the regulations and the obligation in the act cannot be expanded.
As mentioned, the regulations outline the criteria federal institutions must consider in the analysis that informs a language clause. They have an obligation to propose language clauses to the provinces and territories during the negotiation of the agreement and an obligation to inform them of the objectives relevant to official languages.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: This is a follow-up to your question, Mr. Chair.
It’s a question I should be asking the minister, but I’m going to ask you anyway. Is the federal government open to the idea of having a direct responsibility to communities in situations where agreements with provincial and territorial governments cannot ensure that the obligations under Part VII will be respected? Basically, if the provinces and territories do not meet their obligations, would the federal government consider being directly responsible to the communities?
Mr. Quell: I would prefer to provide a written answer to that.
Senator Cormier: We will wait for your written answer, then. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for being with us this evening. Thank you for your opening statement and answers to our questions. The committee is very grateful.
(The committee continued in camera.)