THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, April 13, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on the regulatory framework for 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 Surette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I would like to ask all senators 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 at all times. Do not touch the microphones. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator.
I am Allister Surette, senator from Nova Scotia and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you to everyone with us in the room, as well as those listening to us online on sencanada.ca.
Today, in the first hour of our meeting, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on October 8, 2025, we are studying the regulatory framework of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
To this end, today we welcome Yan Plante, President-Chief Executive, and Jean-François Parent, Associate Director, Public Relations and Research, from the Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité, or RDÉE Canada.
We also welcome Antoine Désilets, Executive Director of the Société Santé en français. Welcome everyone.
Thank you for accepting our invitation. If I understand correctly, the Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité will begin with a presentation from the executive director. Mr. Plante, you have about five minutes before giving the floor to Mr. Désilets, after which there will be a question period.
Mr. Plante, the floor is yours.
Yan Plante, President-Chief Executive, Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité du Canada: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for having us here today.
The modernization of the Official Languages Act has raised high hopes. The regulations that will eventually be implemented must aim to provide more opportunities, not to restrict them through a lack of precision or clarity.
RDÉE Canada believes that regulations are needed to clarify the intent and scope of the act. However, we highlight that an incomplete regulation would be potentially worse than no regulation at all and would certainly be a missed opportunity.
Part VII of the act is the beating heart of the federal commitment. It sets the tone. It requires institutions to take positive measures to foster the development of official language minority communities and to take into account the negative impacts inherent in any decisions that might be made.
This can be done through various means, including by imposing administrative monetary penalties in cases of non‑compliance with the act.
In our opinion, what is even more important is to have regulations that will promote a paradigm shift within the federal government in the way it approaches issues related to language status.
Stakeholders have already proposed to model the regulations on the policy on francophone immigration by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. We fully support that proposal, since it is also at the heart of our recommendation to the committee and to the government.
The regulations should require the development and application of a francophone lens in all federal government programs, policies and initiatives. This is necessary because certain departments generally have a restrictive interpretation of the obligation to foster community development. They see it as a box to tick, but they don’t always see the opportunities that are within reach. Still, Canadian bilingualism offers our country a wealth of strategic opportunities.
I would point out that, in Canada, there are more than 116,000 francophone businesses outside Quebec. About 40% of them have sales of over $1 million, and 11% have annual revenues of over $5 million. There are also 2.8 million French speakers in minority communities across the country. These entrepreneurs, workers, families and individuals make an extraordinary contribution to our economy.
Despite that, when an economic agency or department designs a program, initiative or strategy without assessing whether it’s relevant to incorporate a francophone dimension, there’s a potential shortfall for Canada.
This is the result of a framework that thinks about positive measures almost exclusively in terms of relations with the provinces and territories but is generally limited to negative impacts when it comes to federal institutions, more directly.
You would agree with me that it’s important to adopt a different initial stance if the goal is to avoid negative impacts or, conversely, if the goal is to apply leverage. The first one puts you on the defensive, while the other puts you on the offensive.
There are a number of examples, but I’ll limit myself to two that are particularly evocative: the Federal Tourism Growth Strategy and Canada’s Africa Strategy. The word “francophone” is barely mentioned a few times, as if there was no choice, as if the creators had only given it a few minutes’ thought to ensure that there were no significant negative impacts.
Clearly, we did not assess all the potential that comes with adding this obvious strategic approach regarding the French fact, which should have a significant place in both these strategies for the benefit of Canada. The day-to-day reality is that a department is dedicated to fulfilling its obligations. It rarely goes beyond that. Regardless of the political stripe of the government in power, the government has been programmed that way for a long time.
You will have understood that, for us, the implementation of a mandatory francophone lens should not only protect against negative impacts; it should also assess whether there are specific opportunities.
In conclusion, we believe that the draft regulations must be reviewed to make them clearer. It’s important to specify, define, calibrate and quantify what positive measures and negative impacts are. At what threshold does a negative impact become unacceptable in the eyes of the executive authority?
In terms of employment, for example, would a decision that leads to job losses for francophones in minority communities be acceptable? If so, how many job losses would be acceptable?
It would be appropriate to define a method for calculating compensation if the government goes ahead with a decision that has significant negative impacts. Collectively, we have to seek out tangible economic results. On the face of it, the draft regulations are still too vague and too open to interpretation.
The risk is a failure to respect the legislator’s obvious intention to no longer simply consider the needs of communities, but to meet them.
Thank you for listening. We are ready to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Plante. The floor is yours, Mr. Désilets.
Antoine Désilets, Executive Director, Société Santé en français: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear today.
I’m speaking at a time when the expectations of the francophone and Acadian communities are very high. After years of mobilization, the modernization of the Official Languages Act was finally supposed to make it possible to progress toward substantive equality between French and English in Canada.
First, I would like to make it clear that the Société Santé en français fully supports the recommendations submitted by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada when it appeared before this committee.
I would also like to highlight the quality of your work, including your report entitled Breaking Down Language Barriers in Health Care, published in February 2026, which I will reference today.
Let us recall the purpose of the regulations: to give federal institutions the tools to truly implement the objectives of the act. Good regulations lead to concrete actions. Ill-defined regulations open the door to ambiguity and, in practice, the temptation to take the path of least resistance. I would like to illustrate this issue using the health sector.
Your report makes it clear: The gap between principles and reality is not theoretical. It has direct consequences on the quality and safety of care.
Let us take a concrete example. In March 2023, the federal government and the provinces signed bilateral health agreements based on clear principles, including the principle of equal access to health services for equity-seeking individuals and groups, including official language minority communities.
That principle is spelled out in black and white in the 13 bilateral agreements signed with the provinces and territories. It’s rare to see such an explicit consensus between Ottawa and the provinces when it comes to health care. However, in the vast majority of jurisdictions, the agreement implementation plans don’t reflect that principle through any concrete measures to provide access to health services in French.
The result is simple: The principle exists on paper, but it isn’t put into practice in public decisions. However, the modernized act provides that federal institutions must take the necessary measures to promote the vitality of official language communities in any agreement signed with the provinces, implement positive measures and take into account the impact of their decisions on communities.
The reality is that there is little impact analysis and few concrete measures. Every year, the federal government transfers billions of dollars to the provinces to improve access to health services in Canada, without clear consideration for access to services in French. In other words, it continues to invest heavily in a system that your committee itself recognizes as linguistically inequitable, without addressing the structural causes of the problem.
When the Official Languages Act is not fully applied, the federal government contributes to widening the gap between the services offered to the majority and the services accessible to our communities.
Let us go back to our example. We had a modernized act that clarified the responsibilities of federal institutions. We had principles in the bilateral agreements that explicitly recognized our communities.
In theory, everything was set. However, the results are limited in practice. Why the discrepancy? My guess is simple: In complex negotiations, the path of least resistance prevailed and language obligations were set aside.
This brings us to a fundamental question: What is the value of principles and laws if they are not translated into concrete decisions and actions? That is precisely where regulations become instrumental. If the draft regulations we are discussing today had been in effect, would they have prevented this disconnect in the agreements I was talking about? Today, my answer is no.
Your report supports this observation. The current shortcomings do not stem from a lack of principles, but from a lack of clear obligations, implementation mechanisms and accountability.
The regulations don’t truly equip federal institutions to act on complex issues, such as intergovernmental agreements. Several key elements are still unclear: the definition of positive measures, the impact analyses to be conducted, consultations with communities and the mechanisms to measure progress.
Your February report also recommends providing a better framework for language obligations, in particular by linking them more clearly to federal health funding mechanisms.
Finally, the regulations should specify that these obligations must be taken into account at all stages of the negotiation of agreements with the provinces and territories. In other words, the regulations must equip federal institutions to act not only when it’s easy, but especially when it’s difficult.
I turn to you, members of the committee. If, like me, your goal is for the situation of official language communities to tangibly improve, then the draft regulations are insufficient at this stage.
Your report is a powerful reminder that, behind these issues, there are very real consequences for patients in terms of their safety, their understanding of care and their dignity. Language barriers lead to misdiagnosis, poorer understanding of treatments and worsening health outcomes.
Without clear and robust regulations, the modernization of the act risks having no impact, at least in terms of health. Thank you for listening.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Désilets.
We will now proceed to questions from the senators, and we will try to keep questions and answers to five minutes per senator. We’ll be able to do a second round, since we’re a small group. I would also like to inform you that Senator Gerba has joined us since the meeting began.
Senator Moncion: Good evening and welcome, gentlemen. My first question is this: Did you take part in Treasury Board’s pre-consultations?
Mr. Désilets: We were part of the network of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. We met with them in groups.
Senator Moncion: When you tabled your report, did you do so through the FCFA or did you table independent reports?
Mr. Désilets: Independent reports.
Senator Moncion: Out of the independent reports you tabled, did Treasury Board take any proposals into account? Did you find your recommendations in the regulations?
Mr. Désilets: For the Société Santé en français, no. We didn’t table our own brief; we joined the FCFA. We have not seen the results of the consultations. We heard that there was a significant gap between what had been heard during the consultations and what was there in the regulations produced by Treasury Board.
Mr. Plante: It’s the same thing for us.
Senator Moncion: Do you feel that the consultations the federal government carried out before this bill was introduced were effective?
Mr. Désilets: [Technical difficulties] sections of the act regarding consultations and how to do them properly in terms of official language communities. I think that’s the crux of the regulations issue. There can be consultations, but how do people know if a consultation is effective? Are we looking for the process or the results of the consultation? A good example would be consultation regulations that require a certain degree of alignment between the results and the messages that were communicated. That would probably give us stronger draft regulations.
Mr. Plante: As I understand it, efforts have been made since 2005 to specify, for example, what the positive measures are through regulation. It has been some time. We welcome the government’s effort with the new act and were among those who applauded it. We also welcome the fact that there is an attempt to achieve something by regulation, because we believe in it. Regulations are needed to define the legislator’s intent, the scope of the act, and so on. At the same time, we must seize this opportunity. These situations must no longer be left to the interpretation of individuals within each department.
To answer your question, we were consulted, but do the regulations contain everything we would have liked? Probably not entirely.
Senator Moncion: There are always the same shortcomings, because you mentioned a number of them, including vagueness and insufficient regulations. You talk about limited outcomes as well as expectations. I think there was a lot of focus on regulations, and we’re disappointed to see that there isn’t more concrete action compared to the high expectations.
Mr. Désilets: In health, the example we have is that the law tells us that the government must take the necessary measures in the agreements to promote vitality. That’s not yet understood in the same way by all public service teams. I hear officials say that there is no obligation to force the provinces to impose language clauses. However, this misinterpretation of the language of the act leads to inaction. Taking the necessary steps toward inclusion doesn’t mean doing nothing. It doesn’t mean forcing it either; it means taking action and showing that an effort has been made. The regulation as it stands will not help us clarify that.
Senator Cormier: Welcome, gentlemen. You are articulating a number of issues that we have heard over and over again since the beginning. My questions will focus more on how to move forward in the recommendations made with respect to the regulations.
I’ll start with the agreements. What are the actual responsibilities of the provinces and territories under the federal Official Languages Act? In the agreements, we hear that there is great reluctance to impose anything on the provinces and territories. In the language agreements and clauses, how could we be more specific in the recommendations we make to help the federal government be clearer with the provinces and territories? In other words, should there be a minimum content of language clauses? What are the criteria for a good language clause? What can you tell us about that thinking process? This applies to the economic sector as well as the health sector.
Mr. Désilets: To answer your first question about the provinces’ obligations to follow federal legislation, there are none. These are responsibilities that the federal government has almost unanimously set itself. The responsibility is to do what is necessary and to conduct impact analyses on the effects of the decisions that are made. I was alluding to health transfers in Canada. When the federal government sends the provinces $60 billion a year, we inflate the size of health care systems and create more health services. When the linguistic lens is not applied, since the provinces have no obligations, almost nothing is done for official language communities. The federal government is essentially becoming complicit in the existing service gap because it does not enforce the Official Languages Act on health transfers, for example. I talked about that in my opening remarks.
It starts with the federal government taking responsibility for the laws it has passed. As for language clauses, to determine whether a measure is positive, we have to look at the impact it has. A positive measure is not an intention, but an action that has to have a positive impact. We need to become better able to analyze the impact of measures. Then, when there are potential gaps between the impact of policies and the intent of the act, the act is also clear in that measures must be developed to mitigate negative impacts.
Currently, during highly complicated agreement negotiations that involve several federal authorities, that is not being done. From my perspective in health care, I certainly don’t see it.
Mr. Plante: I’ll continue in the same vein: Collecting data and having more information are very useful.
I mentioned earlier that there are more than 116,000 francophone businesses outside Quebec. In a survey we commissioned, we found that less than 5% of the population could guess how many businesses there are.
It can’t be a surprise that public policy-makers sometimes don’t think it’s a good idea to put special or positive measures in place if they feel that the critical mass isn’t there or that there aren’t enough businesses or individuals.
As stakeholders, we have a responsibility to inform people and underline the message that these businesses exist, but we need to gather more information, conduct more studies and collect more data. We don’t have a lot of data on the francophone minority community.
When even our public policy-makers underestimate the need or the numbers, that’s an issue.
There is also another element that has more to do with the political arena. The federal government could impose conditions on transfers. It could decide to put conditions for the application of language clauses for certain levels of transfers. Will it? The Government of Canada has the power to do so.
Senator Cormier: You’re talking about a different interpretation depending on their responsibilities. Do you believe that federal institutions should have action plans with timelines when they implement the regulations? Do you think that would be helpful? Would it be appropriate to have a governance road map from Treasury Board to apply some kind of consistency in the implementation of the Part VII regulations?
If you were in the shoes of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat or federal institutions, what would you say about that?
Mr. Plante: I would say yes. It would be good to have an action plan, guidelines, a road map and a lens, all of which are important. One of the issues — and I’ve experienced this from the inside in a previous career — is that our poor Minister of Official Languages works horizontally. He can’t call the Department of Health and hold the Deputy Minister of Health accountable. It has to go through the Minister of Health, who makes the decisions.
We need a central agency — be it Treasury Board, the Department of Finance or the Privy Council Office — that has the legitimacy required to demand accountability within the government. That’s where I think a lens or an action plan would be a great idea.
Let’s take the example of Canada’s Africa Strategy, which I was talking about earlier. There is a short paragraph on page 11 where it says that French is spoken in Africa and in our country. That’s all.
If only we had taken a more proactive approach . . . . A huge percentage of our francophone community is made up of African immigrants at the moment. These are highly educated people who have a business network and personal contacts and who can facilitate relationships in Africa. Canada has a good reputation in Africa and is not seen as a colonizer. There are so many opportunities to recruit talent and develop business.
There is one small paragraph. It looks like the strategy was written by majority-language speakers who checked off a little obligation to include a mention of French, but we saw it as a defensive gesture, not offensive. I am glad that Canada’s African Strategy exists, but I would have liked to see a full chapter on how we can leverage the francophone community.
Mr. Désilets: You can’t change what you can’t measure. Planning should aim to achieve concrete results and there should be follow-up along the way. That’s often what’s missing.
Earlier I mentioned bilateral health agreements. There are supposed to be reports every year on their impact. Bilateral agreements have program conditions that are in signed agreements, as opposed to transfers. Those reports have not yet been made public. We’ve been involved in bilateral agreements for three years. There is certainly a lack of capacity to measure the current progress of investments in the health sector, for example.
Regarding your second question, you identified exactly why the regulations need to be stronger to ensure consistency among institutions. It must be hard to be a federal public servant right now and have to apply the act without clear directives. Each federal institution is trying to determine how to comply with the act. There are a lot of good-faith people trying to do the same work right now, and I think the regulations as they stand miss the opportunity to help those teams.
Senator Gerba: I think Mr. Plante read my mind. He said it all and answered my questions.
I’d still like to hear what you have to say about what should have been done under the two strategies you mentioned, the Federal Tourism Growth Strategy and Canada’s Africa Strategy. I agree with you that 62% of the world’s francophone population is made up of Africans. What’s more, many of these young francophones are in Canada.
I’d like to hear what you think should have been done. How could the draft regulations be improved to address these issues?
Mr. Plante: In my opinion, if the regulations were more specific instead of intending to apply positive measures, we would impose a requirement to have a lens, thought process or analysis. We’re imposing the requirement that every time a department presents a strategy, program or policy, it must go through a thought process and use an analytical grid to see not only whether there are negative impacts forcing it to protect communities, but also to realize opportunities and leverage. That would force each department to consider these questions and prepare a report every time. We could have a review every three years or every five years. We could have, for example, a department that says, “In the last five years, you used the lens 100 times. You didn’t apply it 80 times because the analysis wasn’t bearing fruit; you applied it 20 times, and here are the results.”
Then the government probably would not have set up a Canada-wide tourism strategy where there is a chapter on everything except francophone tourism.
Senator Gerba: I agree.
In your opening remarks, you mentioned the issue of avoiding the negative impacts of decisions that have an impact on official language communities. However, you explained that the draft regulations did not specify what the negative threshold is.
How would you recommend that it be clearly defined?
Mr. Plante: I’m not a legal expert or a lawyer. We work in the economic development sector, but we are active in the employment sector. For any measure — according to the terms of the act, it has to be a structuring measure — let’s say that, when you apply the test, you come to the conclusion that there is a negative impact. Right now, whether the impact is negative or not is left to the interpretation of a department, for example, if it is too much or not enough, or what the consequences are if the impact is negative and the government uses its democratic privilege to go ahead anyway. We don’t know if the analysis has been done or whether a decision has resulted in job losses in a community.
For example, if we put a threshold on employment, should it be a number or a percentage of the number of jobs in a given community or province? I don’t know. If there were too big an impact, we would have to think about a compensation mechanism, a bit like we do in trade agreements.
Right now, we’re talking about negative impacts, but everyone has an opinion on what a negative impact is and on the threshold that triggers something else.
Mr. Désilets: I’d like to add something quickly that will answer both your questions. RDÉE Canada and the Société Santé en français recently published a report on the francophone health workforce, and the findings were rather alarming. One of the struggles we’re experiencing is the issue of credential recognition, and in the health sector, it’s particularly challenging.
A large proportion of francophone immigrants come from Africa, and we have few bilateral agreements with African countries on credential recognition.
My premise is that there is inequity between French-speaking and English-speaking Canada in terms of having people’s degree recognized. I’m speculating, because we don’t have any data. We know how many people arrive in Canada with health care experience, but we don’t know how many will be able to work in health care afterwards. This is very alarming to me, because we know that the health of newcomers to Canada deteriorates in the first two years. There is a pool of people who are in great need of health services, but for whom there are structural issues that prevent them from contributing their own skills to the system. In other words, we are making the situation worse.
I think it comes back a bit to the impact of positive measures. A positive measure improves real equity. To know whether real equity is being improved, we need analysis and better data. Again, you can’t change what you can’t measure. In my opinion, it starts by obtaining more data and applying intelligence to these issues to measure the actual impact of public policies. In health, the challenge is that a lot of it has to go through the provinces, so we have to use all the leverage at our disposal at the federal level.
Senator Aucoin: I thank our guests. I would like to pick up on what you said, Mr. Plante. I really liked how you used the word “opportunities” in your response to Senator Gerba. I think that’s the real issue. Based on your comments, I get the sense that the government is not seeing, writing about or defining the potential opportunities in its proposed agreements with the provinces.
I also really liked how you talked about tourism. For example, the definition of “positive measure” is very vague. Do you think this discretionary approach is contributing or will contribute directly to the fact that distant communities like mine in Chéticamp, communities like Torbé or Pomquet will continue to be systematically forgotten in terms of tourism, health and other economic sectors? How would you suggest fixing that?
Mr. Plante: Thank you for the question. I’ll start by clarifying that it wasn’t my intention to suggest that it never happens.
For example, RDÉE Canada works with the Department of Immigration every year on an event called Destination Canada. We promote the country abroad, present job offers, participate in talent recruitment and so on. In one of its initiatives, this particular department looked for ways to make things better for francophone communities. I don’t want my testimony to give you the impression this doesn’t happen at all.
That said, I don’t think it happens systematically, because there’s no obligation to do it.
In our view, if the negative measures in the draft regulation are kind of vague, if they appear to arise from a genuine and verifiable intent but do not require a specific lens or set of criteria — which I’ll say more about — some departments simply won’t do it systematically. In contrast, if the regulations force every department to apply this filter to every strategy, policy or initiative, I think we’d get a more proactive approach to those opportunities.
I may be naive, but I like looking at things that way. Yes, we have to ensure the survival of our communities, but we’re much more than that. Opportunities exist, and we have to seize them. There are 116,000 francophone businesses and three million French speakers. We have to do something with that.
Here’s my answer: Let’s use the regulations to force the departments’ hands so they have to apply this filter every time.
Senator Aucoin: Picking up on what you just said, you stated that Treasury Board or some other entity could ensure that the regulations are implemented or strengthen them. Do you have a recommendation in that regard for the committee to include in its report?
Mr. Plante: Yes, there are probably two.
I think the first is that, if there were a lens and the government decided to use it, it would probably have to be piloted by the President of the Treasury Board with support from the Minister of Official Languages.
The other recommendation, which is really up to prime ministers, is that it might be a good idea to have a real department of official languages. When a minister of official languages, status of women or seniors has a horizontal responsibility, that gets very difficult. Unless a prime minister regularly sends everyone in cabinet a message telling them to support the minister with the horizontal responsibility so they can get the information they want and take necessary actions, it’s difficult because the Minister of Official Languages has no authority over the deputy minister of immigration or the deputy minister of industry, whereas if they had their own department with public servants dedicated to doing that job, things might be different.
I think the first solution is more realistic because each prime minister decides which departments they want.
The Chair: To clarify, knowing that RDÉE Canada is involved in various sectors and activities with a number of federal institutions, that makes things a little more complicated, in part because of the need for talks with different departments.
If I understand correctly, the approach that could be emphasized in the regulations is to clearly state that Treasury Board has the necessary authority to be in charge of the regulations as a whole in a horizontal fashion.
Mr. Plante: I think it’s great to have a minister of official languages, but Treasury Board could be the entity that implements the lens and forces all departments to adopt it and these action plans. They would be accountable to Treasury Board.
For example, departments might have to produce reports every three or five years about how many times they applied the lens, how many times they didn’t proceed, why they proceeded and the results they obtained.
There has to be an entity in charge of that. The three central agencies — the Privy Council Office, the Department of Finance and Treasury Board — have the authority to seek information from departments at any time, but I think finance is busy with the budget, whereas Treasury Board could do it along with the rest of its responsibilities.
I would certainly keep an official languages minister, especially for applying a lens, but it could take on another form. I believe the President of the Treasury Board would have the moral authority to implement this.
The Chair: [Technical difficulties] in French, so when it comes to the challenges we’re encountering right now with linguistic clauses with the provinces, which you talked about in your speech, does Treasury Board have a role to play or can it play a role in all this? You were mostly talking about Health Canada.
Mr. Désilets: You’re right, I do talk about Health Canada a lot. That’s what I have experience with. I think that giving a central agency oversight responsibility for the act is a good idea. I think Treasury Board is in the best position to do it, but they need to clearly hear that . . . . I expect Treasury Board to meet the expectations of the legislative branch in Canada.
A law was passed, and there are obligations in that law. In my view, the proposed regulations we’re studying today have a major shortcoming with respect to implementation. I think it’s very important to send a clear message to Treasury Board that certain entities, such as this Senate committee and the House of Commons, expect stricter and more robust regulations that can really provide the federal government with the proper tools. It’s very complicated. I talk about health a lot because it’s a very complex department. Treasury Board absolutely has to accept and embrace the responsibility it’s being given now.
My answer to your question is, yes, this is the right place. If Treasury Board implements good regulations, that will give all federal entities the right tools. Health is an especially complex sector, but it’s not the only sector in which bilateral agreements are being reached, and what’s being developed could help everyone.
Senator Moncion: Are there any departments that are exemplary in terms of standards or data that you can use?
Jean-François Parent, Associate Director, Public Relations and Research, Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité: If I could just comment quickly . . . .
The department we’re thinking of is Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada because it has a team in place that’s constantly looking for sound evidence. Discretionary funds are allocated every year to gain more knowledge with respect to official languages. We’ve collaborated with ISED a number of times on data projects about the composition of francophone businesses to understand their structure, distribution and trade relationships.
They also contributed to the report we produced with Société Santé en français on labour needs in francophone communities.
The team at ISED really is exemplary.
Senator Moncion: That report on health was excellent too. Well done.
I just want to go over a little history. You mentioned Destination Canada, and that made me happy. The work they do and the work you do for francophone tourism goes way back. You go to Europe to promote Canadian tourism in French. That’s what you do. You encourage people to visit Canada from coast to coast to coast, not just Quebec, and to seek out services in French.
Tourism has a big economic impact. Given Canada’s needs right now, a lot of money is going to defence. If just as much money went to tourism, it would bring in billions of dollars because people are travelling, but they don’t want to travel to the United States anymore. There are opportunities out there.
I’d like you to tell us about tourism ministries, but I gather even the provincial ministries have challenges because as soon as anyone talks about the francophonie and tourism in French, they slam on the brakes. How can Treasury Board help in those sectors?
Mr. Plante: I don’t like this word, but if a specific lens or process or guide or whatever you want to call it is mandatory, then ministries, including tourism ministries, will have to apply that when they’re developing strategies and justify why a given project was given the go-ahead or not. If it’s not mandatory, it will be voluntary. In other words, do they already think it’s a good idea, or are groups like ours doing a good enough job to convince them it needs to be done?
I think we can take this one step further. I think the act gets us there. If I understand the legislative intent correctly, there’s been a shift from “we want to take communities’ needs into consideration” to “we want to meet communities’ needs.” This is not just semantics; it’s different now. The regulations have to make that crystal clear.
I think that if a ministry of tourism were required to explain why a new strategy focuses on francophone tourism or not . . . . I think this is really about strategy.
Senator Moncion: It’s the same for health. If we could work with a different lens and if we had people who could see the associated opportunities better — I’m not saying they don’t see them — if they could just see past what’s already there, there are opportunities available. I really like the legislative intent to move toward meeting needs.
Thank you very much.
Senator Cormier: What you’re saying is that federal departments and institutions that have a responsibility under these regulations should show leadership and work efficiently to ensure that, on the ground, official language communities actually benefit from all of this. What exactly are they supposed to do? I believe they are required to produce reports, so they produce reports, but why isn’t it working? What would you suggest that would get it to work? That’s one of my questions.
You talked about Canada’s Africa Strategy. At the moment, the regulations ignore a number of the obligations in the act. For example, responsibilities given to the ministers of Foreign Affairs, Canadian Heritage and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada are not included in the regulations even though those are big departments. In your view, should that be taken into account and included in the regulations because these are federal institutions and departments that play important roles?
Let’s start with Mr. Désilets.
Mr. Désilets: I won’t talk about international relations because that’s not my area. We were talking about opportunities. Again, please forgive me, but I’m going to talk about the health sector because that’s where my experience is.
Jurisdiction over health care is shared by the federal and provincial governments, which means that not all types of actions are possible. Earlier we were talking about opportunities. In March 2025, Statistics Canada reported that Canada has 160,000 health professionals who speak French. When we asked them how many of those professionals use French, it’s less than 50%.
The opportunity is there. We know that speaking the same language results in better care. Just by adopting better policies and assigning francophone patients to francophone professionals, just by speaking the same language, we can increase the value of our health care systems and provide greater benefit to society without increasing the number of doctors. I talked about doctors in my example, but there are many other professions. The part about connecting patients and doctors is up to the provinces. However, the federal government can introduce positive measures, such as linguistic identification of professionals or communities or a data generator that produces results that help the provinces make decisions or create fertile ground for change or better decisions at the end of the day.
Here’s a concrete example. At the moment, bilateral agreements ask the provinces for eight health indicators in order to compare health care systems across Canada. None of those indicators have to do with language. We can find out how many Canadians are rostered with a family doctor or a family health team, but we can’t find out if there are significant disparities for francophones. However, we do know that if a francophone has an anglophone family doctor, they do not benefit from the services as much.
The federal government can’t force the provinces to create data they don’t want to generate. However, it can deploy federal resources to produce the reports or analyses the provinces won’t produce, which it can use to ensure better decision-making down the line. One of the federal institutions that works with data could do this.
You mentioned language clauses or measures. I would like to return to the objective, which is genuine equality. We probably won’t have all the best measures in place from the outset, but we must be able to determine whether the measures in place are helping or hindering the situation. I am not convinced that even this is currently in place. The act requires much more than is currently being done. Impact assessments are one example. An impact assessment can be very complicated. It must almost become second nature. The Official Languages Act is on my mind every day. That is not the case for all federal public servants. Often, people have their own decision-making processes. For me, the act must provide the tools, and the regulations are a very clear means of enabling a public servant to know what the expectations are, without having to read the entire act.
Senator Cormier: You mentioned data. Who should be responsible for data collection?
Mr. Désilets: At the federal level, Statistics Canada obviously plays an important role. There is also the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which already recognizes in its database that language is an important piece of data. However, it does not generate its own information, but relies on other data. These are two federal institutions that deal with data and can carry out analyses.
There is also a whole section of civil society that does this. There are organizations such as Health Workforce Canada, which carries out workforce modelling. We work very closely with them to ensure they include language in their modelling. It is not a natural reflex. When it comes to civil society, the law does not apply, so we use a different set of levers.
I think we need to lead by example. The law has been passed. We were discussing the legislators’ intention. It seems to go much further than what we currently see in the draft regulations. I return to this objective: Are we at the right threshold? In my view, there is still work to be done and the process is not yet complete. I am not rejecting the regulations. I believe there are still steps to be taken. I hope that, at the end of the process, we can be proud of this regulation and that we, as a francophone community, will feel that it will help us in the future.
Mr. Plante: I would like to add to the response regarding foreign affairs.
At present, the Prime Minister of Canada’s priority is economic diversification. He tells us this quite often. For example, he wants to double exports outside the United States over the next 10 years. For me, foreign affairs also encompasses international trade and development.
If we take the example of Canada’s Africa strategy, we should have adopted a filter to ask ourselves this: Would there be more business opportunities if we went through the francophone communities? When it comes to developing relationships that could be useful, is there a critical mass of people in the francophone communities who can help us? We could ask a number of questions like these.
In the regulations, the idea is to have a lens. For me, that is what it is. In the regulations, we should require every department to adopt a francophone lens whenever it develops a strategy, a policy or an initiative.
Each department could draw up its own set of questions with Treasury Board, as the requirements for foreign affairs are not the same as those for regional development.
By systematically applying this analytical framework, we will not only avoid negative impacts but also be able to capitalize on opportunities that are not always exploited today.
Mr. Parent: There is an interesting model that was developed at the time by Professor Linda Cardinal and Martin Normand of the ACUFC, which essentially lays the foundations for a francophone perspective based on gender-based comparative analysis, or GBA Plus. This model could provide interesting inspiration for the regulations, which could incorporate this perspective based on the model developed a few years ago.
Senator Aucoin: To return to Senator Cormier’s point, we should take this reality into account in bills and bilateral agreements. If we were to state from the outset that Canada is a bilingual country, with a significant francophone community in Quebec and in minority communities, would that not allow us to go much further than is currently the case?
Mr. Désilets: Gender-based analysis is a good example: it has been adopted by all federal bodies and integrated into beneficiaries’ programs, as these bodies were obliged to apply it.
The initiative came from the top and trickled down to the funding mechanisms of organizations such as ours. It would be possible to apply this approach to official languages and ask the following question: Does this decision have a different impact on communities living in minority situations?
I believe that if we are able to implement this for our linguistic minorities, this approach will even help other minority groups in Canada who are not linguistic minorities.
The idea that public policies have different impacts depending on the social and environmental context must become a systematic reflex. This is a practice already in place within the public service, but it deserves to be consolidated.
Mr. Plante: I think a federal government must provide a lot of leadership in these situations.
I’ll tell you an anecdote from my previous career: In certain provincial-federal agreements, including those relating to infrastructure, some provinces demanded that any reference to the Government of Canada’s compliance with the Official Languages Act be removed. It was almost redundant, since the government is subject to it anyway.
Some provinces refused to sign the funding agreement if this clause was included. We sometimes have a long way to go.
Senator Aucoin: In my view, we should no longer be in this position: The inclusion of these clauses should be automatic.
If there were a francophone perspective and a report, we could see whether the provinces are taking minority communities into account and justify any shortcomings, where applicable. For the time being, as there is no report, we cannot assess or measure the impact of these decisions.
Shouldn’t we aim for territorial equity in future funding? As this funding is often concentrated in large cities, criteria could be established to ensure that rural or remote areas also receive their share.
As some public servants and MPs have told me, current housing programs are designed for major urban centres. For a small municipality, it is very difficult to qualify for this funding, which has been devised by people who do not live in the regions. I’d like to hear your comments on this.
Mr. Plante: Yes, this is an issue that comes up frequently. A large proportion of our communities are located in rural areas, and they would certainly welcome greater consideration of their circumstances.
Mr. Désilets: There is no need to regulate what happens naturally. Prioritizing cities is a habit that will no doubt continue. This is precisely where regulation comes in: It forces behaviour that is not natural, to ensure that public policies benefit the whole territory equally.
This function is not currently addressed in the regulations. The regulations for the Official Languages Act do not deal with issues that are genuinely difficult to implement. As mentioned, there are many aspects that are not even mentioned in the current draft regulations.
Do we need them? Yes, because equity does not happen by itself. It must stem from a genuine intention and be translated into concrete actions that we put in place.
For me, the regulation is a form of action. We are currently trying to adapt, structure and decide which actions are necessary. So, my answer is yes.
Mr. Plante: I just want to clarify that a given perspective, a lens, does not mean that funding is granted every time.
Sometimes, we might conclude that it is not relevant, and that is perfectly fine. At other times, it would enable us to bring in the right people to share their expertise in the field.
A lens does not mean that we hand out money every time. What it means is that we impose a filter and a process of reflection on ourselves.
The Chair: If I understand correctly, Employment and Social Development Canada developed an official languages framework in 2024. Is this a framework that interests you or that could be applied to other federal institutions?
Mr. Plante: From what we’ve gathered so far, it’s a good start, but it feels largely like a formality. In fact, we’re being consulted out of obligation, but I’m not quite sure what the next step was.
We’d really like this approach to be consistent, because it stems from regulations. For us, it’s a lever; it’s not just about being told that communities must be consulted.
We meet several times a year and go over the same things amongst ourselves, but I’m not sure we always see the benefits of that.
Mr. Désilets: Many of the law’s obligations can be combined.
Impact assessment, for example, can easily be linked to community consultations. We discuss a policy idea with those living on the ground to find out if there will be an impact, and we work together. Currently, we consult, we decide, and the analysis rests entirely with the federal government, which is not always present on the ground.
Regulations could propose approaches where one stage flows into the next. Ultimately, this would save time for everyone, both at the community level and at the federal level.
Senator Cormier: You said earlier that not everyone deals with the Official Languages Act every day and that it is not on their agenda; I am talking about the understanding, context and vision that underpin the Official Languages Act.
As many have suggested, these regulations should begin with a statement of purpose. This would help to contextualize Part VII, set its parameters and clearly define the vision we wish it to embody.
What would you include if you had to set out this purpose? What do you consider essential to ensure that federal institutions have a clear sense of the vision and direction we need to take to implement the Part VII regulations?
Mr. Parent: One of the points that should be a recurring theme in this document is the stated commitment to respecting the original spirit of the Official Languages Act, the very reason it was enacted.
From the outset, we set out the framework for everything that follows. If we clearly state, in accessible language, the intention to comply with the obligations of the Official Languages Act and the reasons why these regulations are necessary, everything else falls into place afterwards.
Senator Cormier: For example, the concept of substantive equality that appears in the act and which is at the heart of —
Mr. Parent: Exactly.
Senator Cormier: Would you like to add anything else, gentlemen?
Mr. Désilets: I agree with what Mr. Parent said. Beyond the preamble or introduction, we should provide context, but it must also be accompanied by very clear measures. Context is essential, but we can reiterate the objective. We need to set out the necessary working processes that go with it. This would create much more detailed regulations.
We have spoken of a linguistic lens. Perhaps at a certain stage of the planning process, an analysis could be carried out. There are official language champions in every department. Perhaps these individuals could be given the practical responsibility of monitoring these aspects. At present, each institution applies the law in its own way.
Senator Cormier: It has been said that the regulations, as they stand, are quite clear on the process, but not on the outcome. Here, I hear you talking about the process.
Mr. Désilets: I have highlighted a few points which, in my view, are poorly defined in the framework, whether it be positive measures . . . . There could be greater clarity. When we talk about impact assessment and the direct impacts of structural decisions, there are many key terms that need to be interpreted. When we talk about “taking the necessary steps” to promote . . . .
Once again, this is somewhat vague language. In my view, the regulations should specify that “taking the necessary steps” constitutes an analysis at stage A, which will then be communicated to communities through a consultation process. I’ll give a hypothetical example. So, yes, context is important, but very concrete measures must also be included in regulations.
If the regulations are 100 pages long, so be it, but we need to equip the public service.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That concludes our discussion. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to thank you for being part of this panel of witnesses this evening.
For our second panel, we welcome Derrek Bentley, Network Chief Executive Officer, via video conference, and Ahdithya Rajan P. Visweswaran, Director of Advocacy and Public Policy at Canadian Parents for French.
[English]
From the Regional Development Network, we have Brigitte Wellens and Rachel Hunting. Brigitte Wellens is the president, and Ms. Hunting is senior manager of regional development.
Welcome and thank you for being with us tonight. As you have seen in the first panel, we will ask you to present opening remarks for approximately five minutes, and then we’ll go on to a question-and-answer period.
[Translation]
We will begin with Mr. Bentley.
Derrek Bentley, Network Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Parents for French: Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in today’s committee meeting.
[English]
For nearly five decades, Canadian Parents for French has worked to ensure equitable access for all Canadians to have opportunities to learn and use French and to advance the full recognition and use of both official languages across our country.
Today, we are here because the draft regulations under Part VII represent a pivotal moment. The modernization of the Official Languages Act was meant to move from aspiration to enforceable obligation and from uneven implementation to substantive equality. Part VII clearly affirms two interdependent commitments: first, enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities, or OLMCs; second, fostering the full recognition and use of English and French across Canadian society. Part VII was always built on both minority protection and majority engagement, ensuring OLMCs thrive and Canadians in majority-language contexts can embrace both official languages.
Our central concern today is this: As currently drafted, the regulations operationalize one pillar more clearly than the other. They translate institutional obligations into important processes: analyze, consult, document and report. But where the act articulates two equal objectives, the regulations risk creating asymmetry.
The draft regulations require detailed sectoral analysis when assessing impacts on OLMCs, yet no comparable analysis is required for the sectors and organizations that sustain societal bilingualism. If minority vitality warrants explicit examination of its institutional ecosystem, then the full recognition and use of English and French across Canadian society must be afforded the same structural attention.
A second concern relates to the repeated use of the term “other stakeholders.”
The draft regulations refer to “other stakeholders” alongside OLMCs, but they do not define who those other stakeholders are. In the absence of clarity, identification is left to administrative discretion.
Experience has shown that, when guidance is broad and definitions are absent, implementation varies and certain objectives are deprioritized. This is not a theoretical concern. When duality-focused organizations are not explicitly recognized as core actors under Part VII, their participation becomes contingent rather than guaranteed.
We are not asking to compete with OLMCs. We are asking that Parliament’s full vision be implemented faithfully and coherently.
Third, we must address capacity. National OLMC organizations receive dedicated public policy service support project funding that allows them to participate fully in policy and regulatory consultations. Duality-focused organizations generally do not and are often funded primarily for service delivery.
Requiring participation without providing capacity undermines meaningful engagement and risks entrenching a system in which societal bilingualism is treated as secondary.
Finally, we urge the adoption of differentiated consultation mechanisms. There are hundreds of OLMC organizations across Canada. There are comparatively few organizations whose mandate is to foster the full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society as a whole. When grouped together in undifferentiated consultation processes, the perspectives of duality-focused organizations can be overshadowed simply by volume.
An undifferentiated framework does not reflect the dual commitments embedded in subsection 41(1). If the objectives are distinct, the consultation mechanisms must also be distinct.
In short, we urge the regulations to explicitly recognize societal linguistic duality as an equal objective of Part VII, clarify that “other stakeholders” includes other organizations advancing subsection 41(1), recognize duality-focused organizations as core actors, provide the structural supports necessary for meaningful participation and ensure distinct consultation frameworks for duality-focused organizations.
To close, regulations are not a technical afterthought. They are the instrument through which Parliament’s intent is translated into operational reality. The regulations can either entrench ambiguity and uneven application, or they can provide the clarity, symmetry and structural supports required to fully realize the modernization of Part VII.
The opportunity before us is not simply to regulate. It is to complete the work of modernization with coherence, intention and fidelity to Parliament’s full vision.
This act is not only about protecting OLMCs, though that remains essential. It is also about shaping the linguistic character of Canada as a whole.
We respectfully urge you to ensure that both pillars of Part VII stand on an equal footing so that substantive equality between English and French is not only promised in law but fully realized in practice.
[Translation]
Thank you very much for your time today.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bentley.
[English]
Brigitte Wellens, President, Regional Development Network: Thank you for this opportunity to present before you this evening.
The Regional Development Network, or RDN, was founded in 2019 with the mission to enhance and maintain the vitality of regional English-speaking communities in Quebec by supporting network members and other entities to work collaboratively for their socio-economic development.
Community RDN members represent and occupy a distinctive and underexamined position. They are a linguistic minority within a linguistic minority. English-speaking Quebecers living outside the province’s major urban centres experience the pressure of minority language status more acutely, with reduced access to institutional infrastructure, services and visibility compared even to their counterparts in Montreal. This layered reality has not been fully examined in this record before this committee. It is from this vantage point that RDN offers its comments on the draft regulations this evening.
RDN recognizes that the draft regulations are a meaningful step forward in implementing Part VII of the Official Languages Act. For the first time, federal institutions will have a clear and enforceable obligation to consider the needs of official-language minority communities at every major stage of a policy or program, including design, restructuring, renewal and abolition.
RDN also welcomes the explicit recognition of the uniqueness and diversity of official language minority communities. If applied seriously, this principle allows federal institutions to account for the specific realities of regional English-speaking communities in Quebec, which differ significantly from those of Montreal and from francophone minority communities elsewhere in the country. Case in point, more than 600,000 English speakers reside off island and in the regions.
Rachel Hunting, Senior Manager of Regional Development, Regional Development Network: As drafted, the regulations focus on process. They require federal institutions to analyze, consult, document and propose, but not necessarily to achieve results. An institution can satisfy every formal requirement and still preside over a measurable decline in community vitality. The Official Languages Act makes outcome-focused commitments, and the draft regulations translate those into procedural steps.
The space between these two is where the communities that our members support can be left behind. The evaluation and monitoring provisions illustrate this clearly. Federal institutions must assess the effects of their actions but face no obligation to respond when those actions fall short. There is no minimum standard for outcomes and no consequence for consistently ineffective measures. The 10-year review cycle compounds the concern. For communities experiencing higher rates of poverty and higher unemployment than their francophone counterparts, and for communities where schools and health networks are already fragile, a decade of technically compliant but practically ineffective action offers no real protection.
Ms. Wellens: English-speaking communities in Quebec regions do not experience their minority status in isolation. They operate within a provincial policy environment shaped significantly by the Charter of the French language as strengthened by Bill 96 in 2022. This is a legitimate exercise of provincial authority, but it has a direct and cumulative effect.
Access to services in English, including health care, legal services, employment supports and community infrastructure, has been narrowing in many regions. The requirement to consider the uniqueness and diversity of communities must include a clear-eyed understanding of how provincial policies shape access to services. The compliance approach that ignores provincial dynamics will produce analyses that are technically complete but practically insufficient. RDN is not asking the federal government to challenge provincial jurisdiction, but to fully carry out its own responsibilities within that reality.
The regulations also leave unresolved the tension between advancing French linguistic minority communities and enhancing the vitality of English-speaking communities in Quebec. Both are legitimate objectives, but without guidance on how to balance them, regional communities with fewer resources and less visibility risk being consistently deprioritized.
If there is time, the summary of our key recommendations, essentially, is as follows: We need a shift from process compliance to outcome accountability; consultations and analyses must lead to clear, measurable goals; we need shortened review cycles and review corrective action when community vitality is demonstrably declining; we require impact analyses that explicitly account for provincial laws and their effect on access to federal services; we must provide clear guidance on balancing the rights and needs of both official language minority communities; and we must adapt consultation requirements to the limited capacity of small, geographically dispersed communities.
Ms. Hunting: I will provide some final words from RDN.
As an organization, we are committed to a Canada where both official language minority communities are meaningfully supported. The draft regulations are a necessary starting point that must go further. For communities already facing the compounded challenges of being a minority within a minority, the federal government’s obligations under Part VII are not abstract; they are essential. RDN urges this committee to strengthen the draft regulations and recommends that Parliament address the structural gaps that regulation alone cannot resolve.
Thank you.
The Chair: We will now proceed with the questions and answers. If we can keep them within five minutes or so, that would be great. Then we will go to a further round of questions if we have to.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for being here tonight. I will direct my question to Mr. Bentley and Mr. Visweswaran. I will ask it in French first because I am reading your brief in French.
[Translation]
Firstly, I would like to thank you and congratulate you on your submission. I believe you highlight the two key commitments of Part VII, namely to enhance the vitality of francophone and anglophone communities and minorities in Canada and to promote the full recognition and use of French and English in Canadian society. This clearly demonstrates that the Official Languages Act is not intended solely for linguistic minority communities, but for all Canadians.
Among other things, you mention the lack of a definition for the term “other stakeholders.” In your view, what needs to be clarified further in the regulations to ensure that the importance of recognizing French and English in Canadian society is fully taken into account?
When I consider the definition of the term “other stakeholders,” should this term be clarified further and, if so, how? Furthermore, should we, for example, identify key priority sectors for this aspect of the commitment under Part VII, such as culture, education and others, which are recognized as enhancing the vitality of communities?
You may reply in English, of course.
Ahdithya Rajan P. Visweswaran, Director of Advocacy and Public Policy, Canadian Parents for French: Indeed, in our view, the regulations, as currently defined, create an imbalance between the two priorities set out in the Official Languages Act.
Rather, we are seeking to ensure that linguistic duality is not neglected in order to emphasize the vitality of minority communities. That said, given that Treasury Board told us we could not define terms, we have made a proposal.
[English]
We add language that says specifically that other stakeholders that are advancing the priorities or the commitments set out in subsections 41(1) to (3) of the Official Languages Act. Those are the subsections that specifically speak to fostering the full recognition and use of English and French, developing francophone or anglophone minority language communities, as well as the commitment on formal, non-formal and informal minority language education opportunities.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question is for Ms. Wellens and Ms. Hunting.
[English]
In your brief, you state that an unresolved tension remains in the proposed regulation, as it calls for restoring and increasing the demographic weight of francophone minority communities while also enhancing the vitality of the English-speaking minority in Quebec. Am I right that the above is part of your brief? You would like the regulation to clarify how to balance both official language minority communities when supporting one community may affect the other.
I would like to understand that better. Are you talking about the English minorities in Quebec and the francophone minorities outside Quebec? What is the basis for this argument so that I understand it well?
Ms. Hunting: Quebec’s English-speaking communities exist within Quebec’s legislative framework. The tension we’re speaking to in this instance is that when the weight of the protection of French outweighs the possibility of access to services for the English-speaking minority communities, that produces a tension within the communities themselves. However, there is also a tension between the two legislative processes. There is an incoherence between the federal regulations and the overall understanding on the part of the English-speaking citizens as to why they’re not able to go to a post office or a bank and access services in English, or those kinds of federal institutions where they’re used to receiving services in both official languages.
There is a misunderstanding of how the Official Languages Act accounts for provincial legislation that would produce a situation where French is prioritized over access to services in English.
Senator Cormier: Are you saying that the regulations should name that more precisely?
Ms. Hunting: Yes. The regulations need to be more explicit with the application of the Official Languages Act and Part VII, and how the regulations interact with provincial legislation as well. Yes, there is a lack and an incoherence there between the application of the two.
Senator Cormier: Do you have any suggestions that should be added to the regulations?
Ms. Hunting: The groups that spoke before us spoke about having a filter and different mechanisms when you’re measuring programs, investments and those kinds of things. A language filter for the English-speaking community of Quebec that does not include the legislative impacts of Quebec’s framework is doing a big disservice to the English-speaking communities in Quebec because it’s leaving out an entire daily frame and challenge. Every policy and program that’s written — everything that goes on in public life — is measured by the legislation around Bill 96, the Charter of the French Language, and if the federal regulations don’t take that into account in a very explicit and clear way, then the English-speaking communities that are subject to those policies and regulations and the consequences of them are left unconsidered.
The Chair: On that note, the tensions you mentioned in your submission — and also in your submission, you mentioned the different provincial contexts and the challenges of the provincial contexts — are they both meshed in? Is there anything that you recommend that should be changed in the regulations to change the context of federal-provincial relations?
Ms. Hunting: Maybe “tensions” isn’t the best word, but there are difficulties that exist. It’s very difficult to promote and protect the English-speaking minority communities in Quebec. Politically, it’s not very well received. In the public sphere, it’s not very well received. Steps that are taken to be proactive toward the English-speaking community are often met with negative reactions, either in the media or from the political class in Quebec.
Those are the kinds of situations that need to be taken into account.
If the Official Languages Act is going to speak to the situation of English-speaking Quebecers, it needs to understand that it’s operating within that legislative framework, and it needs to account for negative reactions to positive measures that support the English-speaking communities, as well as investments that are made by the federal government to enhance and support the vitality of English-speaking Quebec.
We’ve been doing this for a very long time, and the myth that we’re all rich anglophones from Westmount is still prevalent and out there. It does a lot of damage to communities and organizations that are operating far away from Westmount and outside of Montreal out in the regions.
Those are some of the tensions we’re trying to address.
Senator Moncion: When you look at the agreements that are part of the Action Plan for Official Languages, which differ from the other agreements between the federal and provincial governments, how is that factored in when there are agreements between the federal and the provincial governments concerning the English-speaking community in Quebec?
Ms. Wellens: Are you referring specifically to the Entente Canada-Quebec?
Senator Moncion: That or any other agreement that exists where minority languages and minority needs —
Ms. Wellens: I could speak specifically to one measure in particular that has caused many challenges for the English-speaking community in Quebec, which is, specifically, M-30, which essentially establishes a framework for the minute a federally funded organization tips over and receives more than 50% of its funding from a provincial nature. They then have to get the provincial government to sanction or to let the organization enter into an agreement with the federal government to sign a contribution agreement. It is an exercise that I have had to go through as an executive director of a not‑for-profit organization in Quebec City several times.
When it is related to core funding, it is a little easier. When you speak of things that enter into provincial jurisdiction, it is a little bit of a nightmare. I will give you two concrete examples.
Fairly recently, there was the announcement of the Employment Assistance Services program, or EAS, under Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, which is specifically meant to aid and support English-language job seekers in their search. A similar program, again, an ESDC program, called the Social Partnership Initiative, or SPI, has experienced the same thing. Organizations that need an M-30 are then being held hostage in terms of their capacity to be able to meet the needs of their communities.
So the funding was developed to respond to very concrete needs in our regions; yet we don’t have access to the funding because the organization received more provincial funding. We know that there is no way in those jurisdictions — employment, health and social services, education and immigration — that we would receive an M-30 to allow us to even enter into an agreement with the federal government.
Senator Moncion: Okay. What changes need to happen within the regulations we are looking at to recognize your needs?
Ms. Wellens: The minute money is transferred from the federal government to the province, if there is no mechanism in place to ensure the language lens, it loses its effectiveness. For all intents and purposes, it doesn’t even go to the source of the issue.
Senator Moncion: Okay. So it is the same problem we have in French that you have in English in Quebec. Thank you.
[Translation]
Hello, and welcome to the representatives of Canadian Parents for French. We often meet at various events.
[English]
The draft regulations require federal institutions to take account of sectors essential to fostering the full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society in their analysis.
What do you need within the regulations that will recognize the needs of the work that you do to bilingualize Canadians across this country? I ask because you don’t only work for English-speaking Canadians; you also work for francophones for the bilingual aspect of this country. So what is needed in the regulations?
Mr. Visweswaran: For our mission at Canadian Parents for French, our target audience is anglophones and allophones who live in a majority context. From the 2021 Census, we know that the bilingualism rate in Canada among anglophones outside Quebec is 7.4% and has stagnated now for decades. What we are looking for, as one of the very few organizations in Canada that is working towards linguistic duality and the promotion of bilingualism among the majority-language community, is that sort of assurance that our organization, the projects that we do and the communities that we serve are protected and that they will continue to be a priority, not just on the whims of any certain government of the day.
Senator Moncion: I presume that, for you, the linguistic clauses are extremely important within any agreement that is drawn up between the federal government and the provinces.
[Translation]
Mr. Visweswaran: Indeed. That said, we work mainly in education and we have observed certain issues with the memorandum of understanding on minority language instruction, specifically as regards second-language teaching.
[English]
There are disparities in terms of funding that goes towards covering the supplementary costs of offering second-language instruction. That is something we mentioned in our brief as well with regards to the consultation mechanisms, that when we are grouped in with OLMC organizations in these consultation mechanisms, when it comes to linguistic clauses or such an entente like that one, we are often drowned out because we are one of two, three or four organizations in Canada that speak for second-language education with majority-language Canadians. That is not to say that those are not a priority; it is just by sheer volume of how many organizations from the francophone and anglophone minority language communities are present in these consultations, linguistic duality and the engagement of majority language Canadians are seen to be deprioritized or even just drowned out.
Senator Moncion: That’s unfortunate. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Someone said earlier that the words “other stakeholders” were mentioned in the regulations, and I am trying to understand what you mean.
Would you have liked Canadian Parents for French to be mentioned, or are there other organizations you wish to refer to? You mentioned that they should be listed for the sake of clarity. Could you give us more information on this?
Mr. Visweswaran: Absolutely. A similar question was asked in the House of Commons during a study on the same topic. One member asked for the rationale for adding the “other stakeholders” designation and said that it should simply be removed. The Treasury Board executive responded that organizations such as Canadian Parents for French and French for the Future are responsible for promoting both official languages to the Canadian majority. We can see that this isn’t reflected in the language and wording of the regulations, which refer to francophone and anglophone minority communities and other stakeholders.
[English]
Who are these other stakeholders? They can be absolutely anyone, including actors who have been trusted and have worked for a very long time in this space, such as Canadian Parents for French.
The language we would be looking for here is “other stakeholders actively engaged in supporting the advancement of commitments set out in subsections 41(1) to (3) of the act,” which allows us to be seen as legitimate partners and actors who have done good work in the official languages space without necessarily conflating us with a linguistic minority community.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Regarding your response to Senator Moncion, I just want to understand better and to make things clear for the committee. You said that, if four or five organizations are a bit different from all the francophone organizations, for example, in minority communities in Quebec, this factor should be taken into account in the evaluation or in the consultations. The fact that four, five or six organizations in Canada support linguistic duality, but also promote second-language education or learning . . . . Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Visweswaran: That’s right. It isn’t an arbitrary request. It really reflects one of the two pillars of the Official Languages Act, which are linguistic duality and the promotion of the use of the official languages across Canada. As Senator Cormier said in November, this isn’t legislation for linguistic minorities in Canada, but legislation for all Canadians.
Senator Aucoin: At this point, I’ll play devil’s advocate. If five organizations promote the teaching of a second language — in this case French — but dozens of francophone organizations exist outside Quebec, if you’re given the same priority or the same value, won’t there be an imbalance?
Mr. Visweswaran: In my opinion, no. We represent 450,000 students in French immersion programs across the country. There are many more students studying in French as a second language programs, such as core French or enriched French, extended French or post-intensive French, depending on where they live in the country. So, yes, it may seem like only four or five organizations are promoting the second language to the majority. However, we represent a significant population in the country.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
Mr. Bentley: I would add that, aside from the figures, two objectives are equal under the legislation. If, in consultations, the second objective — to promote linguistic duality to the majority — is seen in a lesser light given the smaller number of organizations, then we’ve failed with this legislation up to a point. The fact that there are fewer organizations shouldn’t diminish the promotional aspect.
The structures currently in place in Canada have given rise to many key community groups for minority communities. We aren’t taking anything away from these groups. If we want to show the importance of linguistic duality and bilingualism, even though there are only four or five groups, these voices must remain on an equal footing. These two pillars are in the legislation.
I’ve experienced this a number of times. I was one of about 30 voices at a consultation. Technically, this voice represents 50% of the legislation’s objectives. However, in the end, we’re seen as just one voice among 30 or so minority voices. This aspect must change.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
Senator Gerba: Welcome. In your brief, you recommend that the draft regulations explicitly recognize linguistic duality as a key objective, in addition to the protection of minority communities.
What concrete recommendations would you make to incorporate this recognition into the regulations, in terms of both the principle and the implementation?
Mr. Visweswaran: Good question. First, it’s important to recognize — not only in the legislation, but also in the draft regulations — the need and objective to promote both official languages not just for minority communities, but across the country for all Canadians. Mr. Théberge, the Commissioner of Official Languages, once said something important.
[English]
Bilingualism is a shared societal project. It’s a pan-Canadian societal project.
[Translation]
This must be reflected in the draft regulations. They can’t just be draft regulations to ensure the implementation of certain priorities for a minority community in the country. The legislation has two objectives. These two objectives must remain apparent in our actions. I’ve lost my train of thought. Perhaps Mr. Bentley has something to add?
Mr. Bentley: Yes. We have some concrete suggestions.
[English]
We want to ensure that we can define who “other stakeholders” are. Removing the ambiguity can ensure that groups such as Canadian Parents for French are not, by accident, forgotten about. That would be first.
Second, there are some inconsistencies throughout the regulations around where “other stakeholders” is used. When we compare the text to the actual law, there are some spots where “other stakeholders” seems to have been removed, or we talk about “or other stakeholders” instead of “and.” Just some clarity around the fact that groups such as Canadian Parents for French or linguistic duality groups should always be part of these conversations.
Then the third pot goes to the thought that there needs to be a differentiated consultation framework. I don’t know how to write it into the regulations, but we cannot just be lumped into the same consultation all the time where the voices around duality get drowned out. I don’t think intentionally, but just by sheer volume of being one and there being many OLMC voices.
To sum it up quickly, those are three main areas where we would like to see some changes in the current draft regulations. Of course, if there are a whole bunch of changes brought forward based on what we have heard from lots of partnership organizations, obviously, we would want to be included in those changes as well, likely through the “other stakeholders” definition that we would like to see in the regulations.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you for the response. I hope that we’ll end up finding criteria or tools to put these recommendations into practice.
The draft regulations propose a review after 10 years to assess overall effectiveness. However, a number of stakeholders have said that this may be too long. What do you think?
Ms. Wellens: It’s much too long. If it were every five years, at least, that would give us some flexibility to take corrective action before it’s too late. If a community is in decline, we can’t wait 10 years to pick up the pieces and take concrete action to revitalize it. This time frame is indeed quite long.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: My question is for the representatives of Canadian Parents for French. I’ll describe the situation over the long term. We aren’t as young as Mr. Visweswaran. The cohabitation between the needs of official language minority communities and second-language education for the English-speaking majority has always caused problems, in some respects, for financial reasons. This dynamic still provokes tension. At the same time, you’re quite right to clearly state that one commitment under Part VII of the act is also the promotion and full recognition of English and French, in particular through second-language education.
In your recommendation number five — I would like to hear more from you on this — you call for dedicated funding, similar in scope and purpose to the public policy service support provided to national OLMC organizations. Could you elaborate on this to give us a better understanding? Obviously, I’m not referring to the fact that you’re five associations, as opposed to one number. However, I would like to hear about your specific needs.
[English]
Mr. Visweswaran: As I mentioned, there are 450,000 students in French immersion programs, and that does not include the students who are in French second-language programs such as Core French and intensive French across the provinces and territories in Canada.
Canadian Parents for French is almost the only voice that is doing work to advocate on behalf of those students to ensure access to these programs so that all Canadians can have the opportunity to learn, work and thrive in both official languages, which is increasingly becoming a criterion for work and a criterion for living in certain places.
We are repeatedly told by the federal government, when we are doing some advocacy work, that we should be speaking to the provinces and territories. That’s where we run into the issue of capacity. We are just one organization with a few staff members, and we are not able to have the same lobbying capacity or advocacy research, and all of that knowledge that we should be bringing together when we are doing advocacy with provinces and territories. That is why a similar fund, such as the Public Policy Service Support, that minority language communities receive, such as CFLI and TOC receive, would support us to participate in public consultations such as this one.
It took many hours for CPF to be able to put together a brief with this amount of detail and to participate and bring the only perspective, if I’m not mistaken, at this committee as well as the House of Commons committee, from a duality perspective. We are the only witness to both chambers who have been here to speak for majority-language Canadians and their opportunities to learn, live, work and thrive in both official languages. So we are not able to bring in lawyers and policy analysts.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I have a burning question. Through these regulations, in your discussions with the federal government, how could a province such as New Brunswick — which has two official languages, but a large majority English-speaking community — benefit from funding for second-language education?
There seems to be significant funding for the majority. Yet you’re telling us that you, as an organization, must lobby to ensure that the English-speaking majority in Saskatchewan has access to French-language education. What’s the relationship with the provinces and territories? You say that you aren’t financially equipped and that you need money to do this. Are you the only ones responsible for this? Where does the federal government’s responsibility lie in its relationship with the provinces? Could the agreements provide further clarification on these issues?
Mr. Bentley: I think that the agreements are an excellent starting point. Given our good relationships with these organizations, we see French-speaking communities making requests for language clauses in all these agreements. From our point of view, the issue is how to ensure that these language clauses also contain a bilingual lens. We need to look at how to ensure that the English-speaking majority has the opportunity to engage in French-language activities in any area and that it can also learn the language. That’s our mission. It goes beyond arts and culture.
The federal government has a bigger role to play. However, if it can’t even place these two objectives of the legislation on an equal footing, we have a problem. Historically, the provinces and territories have had less of an obligation to do this. This is where the idea of linguistic duality or learning both official languages is quickly forgotten. We’re asking the federal government to take a stronger lead on this issue by saying that minority communities need full support. We absolutely must change the fact that only 18% of Canadians outside Quebec are bilingual. This figure hasn’t changed.
At what point do we aim for 20%, 25%, 50%? What gift would it be for the country and for minority communities to say that 50% of Canadians speak both languages? If 50% of Canadians spoke both languages, the challenges tied to a bilingual workforce would be resolved. The federal government must show leadership to make this happen. In part, the starting point lies in saying, through these agreements, that it isn’t just about the minority language. It’s about promoting these languages to the majority.
Mr. Visweswaran: This mandate is set out in the Official Languages Act.
[English]
In section 43(1)(e), it says that the Minister of Canadian Heritage needs to encourage and assist provincial and territorial governments and non-profit organizations to provide opportunities for everyone in Canada to learn both English and French. We are not seeing that so much.
Senator Moncion: My question is for the anglophone organization in Quebec. You talked about greater Montreal and how the needs in Montreal are not the same as communities outside of Montreal in rural communities. How do they differ in needs and services?
Ms. Hunting: We don’t have enough time, but thank you for asking that question because it is important for the communities our member organizations represent.
From one region to another — off island, outside of Laval, Montreal — you have wildly different situations in terms of educational institutions that are available in English, access to health and social services in English and hospitals that are either designated as bilingual or not. I don’t need one whole hand to count the number of English-language CEGEPs that are available in regions outside of Montreal.
The young people of these communities where these English-speaking Quebecers come from have to leave in order to become educated. They often don’t return. If they do return, the opportunities for success are not the same. They are often outside of their fields of study. There are many factors that go into life as an English-speaking Quebecer, but when federal monies that are available for official language minority communities, or OLMCs, are transferred to the provinces without very explicit language safeguards, what happens to that funding and why it becomes inaccessible for our organizations is because, historically, English-speaking organizations are generalists. They are not sectoral. They do all things because of the infrastructure issues I mentioned previously.
The Quebec framework for funding from the provincial government is very sectoral. If you are not a sectoral organization, you cannot receive what they consider core funding or program funding to speak to the needs of that particular sector. So if our organizations are put in a position where their access to federal official language monies is eroded or diluted, or if there is any possibility for these investments to not go to their communities, they are in a situation where they now have lost access to critical support investments, and they either have to create small sub organizations with full legal implications and separate boards of directors — the whole shebang.
You basically have to create another organization in order to access a sectoral fund. You are putting organizations in a position where historically available funding is becoming precarious and increasingly difficult to access, even now with M-30 legislation, depending on which jurisdiction you are working within, and then provincially, they may not be able to access the funding available for those specific sectors because the organizations do not meet the framework expected by the provincial government. So it puts the communities that are supported by these organizations in an increasingly precarious situation.
Senator Moncion: The regulation doesn’t acknowledge these differences. I don’t think there are protections within the regulation.
Ms. Hunting: I would agree with you. Currently, there is a conversation going on between the provincial government and the Department of Canadian Heritage, for example, about the transfer of those investments for official language minority communities.
If those investments are made without explicit language safeguards, organizations that have been receiving that funding for decades could see it evaporate quickly. That’s very problematic for organizations in the regions, especially because they lack the infrastructure, and they lack access in the same way you would have in a large urban centre.
This is not different than francophone minority communities outside of Quebec in rural settings as well, but it is very dangerous because our communities are not recognized within Quebec’s legislative framework. We are not a recognized minority. So it is very important for English-speaking Quebecers to feel like the federal government is at least there with some measure of regulation and protection for those communities, but it is a hard sell.
Senator Moncion: I agree. I’m happy that you did voice it this way because it is the same situation when you look at it on the other side. The francophones in minority settings and with provincial governments not recognizing the needs of their minorities — whether in education or in other needs and communities. This is lacking in the regulation, whether you are francophone or anglophone.
Ms. Hunting: It is not just a matter of financial investments either. It trickles down to consultations and having community-driven input in the development of programs. That is also something that could be eroded if those safeguards are not in place.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
The Chair: I noticed in your brief that recommendation 5 makes reference to making consultation workable for smaller communities. Consultation requirements should reflect the limited capacity of small geographically dispersed communities.
This includes adequate notice, accessible formats and opportunities for ongoing input, which leads me to my question. Are you talking about your organization or other organizations within the group in the one case, and in the other case, what was the level of consultation for your organization?
Ms. Wellens: We’re referring specifically to the member organizations of the Regional Development Network, and I can give you specific examples.
Sometimes, the date is announced for a consultation, people save it in their calendar and they are sent some briefing notes on what the consultation process is supposed to yield in terms of results. Community organizations are not well prepared for what the government needs from them when those consultations happen.
The gentlemen who were here before us said it clearly. We’re not policy experts. We’re not lawyers. We know the boots-on-the-ground information, we know our communities and we can translate those into real concrete measures at the community level, but it sometimes doesn’t reflect what the government wants to hear, or the process that they have just doesn’t fit. We don’t check that box.
We need a little more preparation in terms of knowing way in advance and education on how to interface and interact with government during these consultations to make the process as effective as it can potentially be.
[Translation]
The Chair: This brings us to the end of the meeting, unless my colleagues have any further questions.
[English]
On behalf of all of us, thank you for appearing before us tonight. It was greatly appreciated.
[Translation]
Colleagues, we’ll suspend the meeting briefly and then continue in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)