THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, April 27, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:00 p.m. [ET], with videoconference, to examine and report on such matters as may arise from time to time relating to official languages generally, and to examine and report on the regulatory framework of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Senator Allister Surette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My dear colleagues, before we begin, let me invite you to acquaint yourselves with the guidelines designed to prevent incidents of feedback. They may be found on the cards on the tables in the committee room. Please keep the earpieces away from all microphones at all times. The microphones will be turned on and off by the console operator. Finally, please do not handle the earpieces when the microphone is on.
Good evening. My name is Senator Allister Surette from Nova Scotia. I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I would now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Wells: David M. Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Henkel: Danièle Henkel from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia. Good evening.
Senator Hébert: Martine Hébert from Quebec. Good evening.
The Chair: Thank you, my dear colleagues. I also welcome those who are with us here today, as well as those joining us online at sencanada.ca.
Today, pursuant to the general order of reference adopted by the Senate on September 25 last year, we are studying the proposed regulations on administrative monetary penalties and the draft regulations on the use of French in federally regulated private businesses.
For that purpose, we welcome the Honourable Marc Miller, P.C., M. P., Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages. We bid you welcome, Mr. Miller, and we thank you for taking the time to come and testify before the committee.
I would also like to welcome the members of your team who accompany you today. They are Francis Bilodeau, Deputy Minister, and Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions. Mr. Minister, you have five minutes, or all the time you need for your opening remarks.
The Honourable Marc Miller, P.C., M.P., Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages: Thank you, Mr. Chair and ladies and gentlemen of the committee. I already know a good number of you personally and I know you all by reputation.
I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. I am pleased to appear in my capacity of Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages. But it is the first time I have testified with those responsibilities. Good evening.
One of my mandates is to move forward with the implementation of the Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, which received royal assent in 2023.
My department, Heritage Canada, is responsible for the work that will result in two of the sets of regulations under the act being adopted. Each of the two sets of regulations brings us one step closer to the substantive equality of English and French.
Last month, Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions, appeared before you to present the key aspects of the draft regulations on administrative monetary penalties.
[English]
This draft bill was tabled in Parliament on November 26 of last year and published on March 7 of this year in Part I of the Canada Gazette. Official consultations are currently under way.
It’s expected that comments from the public and the Senate on the draft bill will be taken into consideration while taking into account the constrained legislative framework imposed by the Official Languages Act itself.
I’d like to thank the Senate — in particular, your committee — for the interest shown in the regulatory content.
[Translation]
The department has noted an interest in this upper chamber for the following issues: including administrative relief in the discretionary power of the Commissioner of Official Languages, including other crown corporations, such as the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and, of course, the amount of the penalties.
Mr. Chair, since the regulations on the penalties were published in the Canada Gazette, we have passed another major step in the implementation of the modernized Official Languages Act. Allow me to go back over that long process, which was designed to solidify the equality of French and English, our two official languages.
In 2021, we made the historic commitment to protect French in the private businesses that fall directly under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Having recognized that French is in a minority situation in Canada and in North America because of the predominant use of English, we took decisive and specific action.
On April 15, for example, we unveiled the key point of our commitment by introducing in Parliament more draft regulations. I am referring to the enabling regulations that accompany the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, the UFPBA.
[English]
As you know, this new stand-alone act is enacted by An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, otherwise known as Bill C-13. It will come into force at the same time as its implementing regulations, first in Quebec and then two years later in regions with a strong francophone presence.
[Translation]
This process is important for francophones and francophiles, both in Quebec and elsewhere in the country. It will bring concrete changes to their lives as a result of new rights regarding the language of service, of communication, and of work.
The process will solidify the use of French. The result will be a major improvement in the relationship between businesses, their employees and their customers. The process will also be of great benefit to the businesses by establishing concrete and much-needed measures to protect French in Canada and in North America.
In designated regions, businesses have working and commercial relationships with French-speaking clients and employees. The process will enshrine those relationships in a coherent and clearly defined manner.
[English]
Our cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that despite significant upfront costs, the proposed framework generates net-positive outcomes, notably through improved service quality, reduced internal friction and greater stability in business relations.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, let us be very clear. The measures we are proposing will not harm English. They will strengthen French. Canadians who use French must be provided with systems that give them adequate protection.
I would like to assure you that we have taken all necessary steps in order for the enabling regulations to meet the needs of French-speaking Canadians on a major scale. It is part of a years‑long initiative that has required consultations with business, unions and the public. At the end of a 30-day waiting period in the House of Commons, the enabling regulations will be published in Part 1 of the Canada Gazette.
Of course, we will be receptive to any comments made. These regulations are an essential tool in releasing the full potential of our language reform. Once more, it demonstrates our commitment to achieving substantive equality between French and English.
Protecting and promoting both of our official languages is a priority for me, for the government and ultimately for the country. The use of French is in decline and must be protected. Official language minority communities must be supported. This is why we continue to work tirelessly. Thank you for your attention. I am ready to answer your questions; indeed I look forward to doing so.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Minister. Let us then immediately move to the time for questions and answers. Let us try to keep the question and the answer within five minutes.
Senator Cormier: Welcome, minister. Like my colleagues, I actually have a lot of questions about the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, about the regulations that will come from the act and about the administrative monetary penalties.
Under sections 12 and 13 of the Use of French Act, the UFPBA, you are responsible for “providing assistance, education and information to federally regulated private businesses” in terms of the rights provided for in the act. The rights we are referring to are about the language of work and communications, and about services in French.
The Official Languages Act, which provides for the UFPBA, has a transition provision under which you can take any measure that is required to implement sections 12 and 13. It does so even though the UFPBA is not yet in effect.
What measures have you taken to date to support federally regulated private businesses in their delivery of the services they are required to provide?
What do you propose to do until the regulations are passed, since the legislation gives you that ability?
Mr. Miller: Thank you for the question, senator.
First, as a way to frame my answer, I feel we have to understand that our two official languages, English and French, as not equal in their situations. We are aiming for that equality.
The time frames, which some may find unacceptable, are practical measures designed to ensure that affected companies and organizations have enough time. The object of the legislation is not to start by punishing the companies that do not comply. Rather, we want to ensure that they are sensitive to the issue.
The process of raising awareness is a major one. It involves the francophone strategy we have put in place and includes the preconsultations we are currently holding. The time frames, therefore, are established so that we do not drop the ball, especially in smaller communities, and so that the businesses can bring on employees who are able to provide the service.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for that answer. However, I understand that there were no transitional provisions already allowing companies to prepare. That is my question.
Mr. Miller: Do you mean whether a formal provision was included?
Senator Cormier: Yes, because it can be done.
Mr. Miller: Beside the preconsultation process, I would say that the answer is no. Beside raising awareness, the answer is no.
Senator Cormier: Okay. My second question is still on the UFPBA.
In New Brunswick, the designated bilingual areas provided for in Part V of the act in terms of the language of work applies to the entire province. The language requirements governing federally regulated private businesses also apply to the entire province. But the requirements governing communications with and services to the public — the ones in Part IV of the act — do not.
In other words, depending on where you are in New Brunswick, and which federal door you knock on, you may or may not get service in both languages. Aren’t you afraid that people may be confused?
Since the next ten-year review of the Official Languages Act is scheduled for 2033, could the government look at ways to harmonize everything? As you well know, New Brunswick is a bilingual province; the province provides service in both languages everywhere. The federal government does so in some regions, but not in others. Does your department have any willingness to work towards harmonizing the various services?
I see you looking puzzled. Perhaps the question isn’t clear.
Mr. Miller: Not at all; it’s very clear.
To be perfectly honest with you, given that we will be applying the same measures to businesses that would have been covered had they not been in New Brunswick, we are faced with the same reality: there may not be the same demographic penetration in French. All I can tell you is that it would just be a different Swiss cheese situation from the one we have today.
To be very clear, I believe that we want to use New Brunswick as an example. As the only bilingual province, it already is, at least officially.
You can certainly be assured of my department’s willingness to set an example, knowing that there will clearly be challenges in some parts of New Brunswick where people do not really speak French.
We are ready to face those challenges. And, if there is a difference in approach between one organization covered by one part of the Official Languages Act and another covered by the UFPBA, my department will certainly take it under advisement.
Senator Moncion: Welcome, Mr. Minister.
I am going to be referring to the consultations you supposedly had with Treasury Board ahead of the game. Can you explain how those consultations went?
Mr. Miller: Senator, to answer that, I would like to ask one of my colleagues to flesh out my short answer.
We work with Treasury Board all the time. As you know, it has a key role to play in the act as such, so that Treasury Board can establish the example I was talking with Senator Cormier about.
So the work is done constantly and regularly. But as I am not doing it myself, I will ask another witness to give you a more detailed answer.
Francis Bilodeau, Deputy Minister, Canadian Heritage: We are both relatively new in the consultation process, but it is clear that consultation and the requirement to work collaboratively are enshrined in the actual legislation. As the minister mentioned, the collaboration is regular, but it is relatively new.
Ms. Boyer, you were there at the time. Can you give us some more details?
Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions, Canadian Heritage: Heritage Canada has the lead in developing regulations and Treasury Board takes care of the regulations in Part VII. There have been discussions at all levels: advisers, managers, directors, directors general and assistant deputy ministers. Discussions on the major components to be included in each set of regulations have been held at deputy minister level and between ministers’ offices.
Does that answer your question?
Senator Moncion: Yes. At that point, I am going to talk about the financial measures.
The regulations have just been published. But I believe that a lot of information has been produced about the places where changes are seen to be desirable.
We would just like to know whether there is any openness to making changes to the items dealing with monetary penalties, especially in terms of the criteria. I think that there are 16 criteria for investigations. But we know that, in other departments with monetary penalties, the requirements are much fewer. Perhaps this is a flaw in terms of the investigations.
Mr. Miller: First, I am looking forward to seeing the reports from both chambers. The department has a role to play because we have expertise in the area. But other departments have a responsibility too, starting with Treasury Board. This is because the act requires them to establish the best practices and to play a coordinating role that Heritage Canada cannot play, or could not play so effectively.
That does not mean that I am always getting in Treasury Board’s way. But, because of our expertise, it is imperative that we are at the table. This is in order to ensure that each department and, above all, each organization that deals with the public can do what is practical and feasible under the legislation.
In your discussions and in my own, it is necessary to identify certain points vis-à-vis penalties of a monetary nature. It is important for each program with the same penalties to observe and analyze whether an organization is being punished or whether it is being brought into compliance.
I feel that you will agree with me in concluding that the first priority is to achieve compliance so that people can have proper service in French, as they should expect and as is their right. Some penalties require them to comply with the legislation. But the line between that and punishment is yet to be defined. When a penalty becomes a punishment, I believe we can do better.
Even a punishment implies a sum that the commissioner would determine to be reasonable under the circumstances. If you have any recommendations, I encourage you to consider them, as we are doing. I am open to your comments and even to suggested corrections.
Senator Moncion: It’s not yet about the monetary penalties. Before we can even get to monetary penalties, we have to decide on the analysis, the investigation and the number of criteria that have to be met. The organizations that the committee has heard from tell us that the real issue is with the complexity. We agree that we just don’t want to get to monetary penalties as a form of punishment. We prefer to encourage a change in behaviour.
Mr. Miller: Exactly.
I forgot to say that I am open. If you have suggestions to include in your report, I will examine them with interest.
The commissioner also has a role in all this. Her role in the implementation is extremely important for me because compliance will not be in the hands of a politician. I consider that to be a very important role. If the process becomes too heavy, I feel that we will be able to review the regulations.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
The Chair: The notion of “too heavy” is something that we have heard from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. You have surely heard it too. It’s very good that you are considering it.
Senator Gerba: Welcome, minister.
I am going to go back to the issue of assistance for businesses. In the June 2022 study, the Parliamentary Budget Officer predicted that the new requirements for federally regulated private businesses would have major financial repercussions. This would be especially true in terms of costs for items such as language training and salary bonuses. A number of organizations, including the FCFA, supported the idea of government assistance in covering those costs for the businesses. Are you in favour of supporting businesses with such assistance?
Mr. Miller: I am not opposed. However, I don’t want to disconnect businesses from the role that they must play in serving a public that has a right to be served in French.
It is true that, at the start, costs will be incurred. Is it up to the federal government to pay them all? I say that the answer is no. It’s not that we are taking profits and clients away. It’s also a matter of principle. I am not rejecting the idea out of hand. I am sure that, in the awareness-raising process, efforts can be made to hire people who can speak French. The federal government could play a role in the changes that have to be made when a company has previously operated in English. I cannot commit to specific sums today. However, I can say that we must work hard to ensure that all these businesses comply with the legislation.
I must emphasize that it is not automatically the federal government’s role to compensate people for something from which they will benefit later. Above all, I believe that replying in French to people asking to be served in French is to everyone’s advantage, including the businesses.
Senator Gerba: I understand that it’s not up to the federal government to provide the funding. At the same time, the businesses are being asked to cover certain costs to comply with the legislation within the required timelines. At some point, the federal government also wins in that the businesses are relieved that they can provide services in both languages. But I recognize that it’s not in the plans.
Mr. Miller: At the moment, in terms of funds for that specific initiative, no. But to be practical and reasonable, we have allowed businesses two years to try and comply with the legislation, especially outside Quebec. All our analysis, both from the preconsultations and the consultations, shows that minds are open, albeit in the knowledge that it will cost some money. There is also an understanding that there will be some awareness-raising in terms of the new rights that people in this workforce may claim.
Senator Henkel: Mr. Miller, Ms. Boyer and Mr. Bilodeau, thank you for being here and for agreeing to answer our questions.
My first question is about the proposed regulations on the administrative monetary penalties. The schedule lays out penalties of up to $50,000. While the objective is to prevent reoccurrences, are you not afraid that some companies might perceive that amount as just a cost of doing business rather than a real deterrent?
Mr. Miller: Possibly, yes. To follow up on your colleague’s question, I hope that they will not ask us to compensate them for that cost of doing business.
I believe that speaking French is a benefit for the businesses. End of story. But I am not naive. We know that the start-up costs will be significant.
It is perhaps true that a business with a lot of money could consider any potential penalty to be trivial and insignificant. However, remember that the commissioner can impose penalties over and over again. One payment of $50,000 does not close a case. It does not make them immune to the next stages; other penalties may ensue. They apply each time. If you believe that other levels may be acceptable as a consequence of a careful analysis, I am very open to it.
Senator Henkel: There has been discussion of repeat occurrences. There has also been discussion about the way in which people will register complaints. If the amount of the penalties is perceived by some businesses as insignificant and if people have to go through onerous steps every time they want to make a complaint, it all seems to be a disincentive for those who want to complain. We can think about it and let you know what we have come up with.
I have a second question. Since the money from the penalties is a direct result of infringing on language rights, how do you justify paying them into general revenue rather than reinvesting them in a targeted way in the official language minority communities who are suffering the consequences?
Mr. Miller: Before I answer your question, I should say that we are also having discussions with the commissioner that could result in an agreement whereby people do comply with the legislation.
It is a good question. It is something we consider in each case of administrative penalties. Before the analysis is complete, the other sources of funding for the affected communities have to be looked at. It’s not always about a circular economy. Sometimes, it may be more so, sometimes less.
Nevertheless, it is the formula generally used in our regulations on administrative penalties.
Senator Henkel: According to Statistics Canada, 181,000 people in Toronto could ask for service in French. That’s the biggest pool of francophones outside Quebec. But Toronto is not included, even in strongly francophone areas, such as the ones around CBC or the Université de l’Ontario français.
Similarly, provincial and territorial capitals seem to have been excluded, although they are where most of the francophones in each administration are concentrated. Why that choice?
Mr. Miller: I am open to your thoughts on that. But it’s simply about density. I am actually surprised to hear more and more French right in Toronto, especially these days. Your figure is a good one, though it’s from 2021. I hope that the new census —
Senator Henkel: I hope so too.
Mr. Miller: — will identify many others, especially with our efforts in immigration.
It’s the reality of the calculation used and the result of the criteria we established. So, no, Toronto will not be covered, nor will Halifax and Vancouver. In Edmonton, as I understand it, the area covered is a small one around the Campus Saint-Jean.
It is a valid comment. The simple answer is that the people in Toronto are not concentrated in the numbers established when the regulations were written. So it would not be covered and neither would the businesses located there.
Senator Henkel: But that could change if ever the concentration —
Mr. Miller: Yes, according to the formula in the regulations and the legislation.
Senator Henkel: Thank you, minister.
The Chair: On that topic, do you have an idea of the numbers of businesses that would be subject to the new regulations?
In my own province, three small Acadian and francophone regions, predominantly French-speaking, are included but Halifax is not. Another criterion requires businesses to have at least 100 employees. So when I look at our small regions, a number of our businesses seem to be excluded. I am curious to know whether you analyzed the number of businesses that will be affected.
Mr. Miller: We estimate that a total of approximately 1,300 businesses would be affected. I could not specify in exactly which regions. It may be a question of a bank branch, or something similar, but it is true that, where the demographic numbers go down, there very well may be fewer federally regulated businesses.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you for being here, minister.
My question is primarily about the definitions that Treasury Board did not provide. For example, terms like “vitality, positive measures, concrete measures, beneficial effect” do not seem to have been clearly defined. So I have two questions about it.
Did the Treasury Board provide a reason why the terms were not clearly defined? The provinces have always hesitated — for want of a better word — to impose official language legislation when they were not absolutely required to do so. My fear is that, with such vague definitions, the businesses — 1,300 of them would be subject to the new regulations — could choose not to be proactive in meeting the needs of the francophone community. Can you explain that?
Mr. Miller: Here’s a very quick reply to your observation: I agree with you and I share the fear.
To answer the first part of your question, I dread to speak for Treasury Board, precisely because I have so much respect for them. I am looking forward to your report and to the one from the House of Commons committee. Without getting ahead of myself, I feel that they will examine your proposals about those same definitions from all sides.
Senator Aucoin: Is it possible for the federal government to consider other ways of ensuring compliance with Part VII of the Official Languages Act through these regulations? It could be with the provinces or with the businesses affected by the new requirements. What should the consequences be for provincial or territorial governments — not to mention the businesses subject to the new legislation — that refuse, for example, to include language clauses or to fail to comply and generally get in the way? Can anything else be done to have those clauses included and complied with?
Mr. Miller: First, among my responsibilities as a federal minister, I have a coordinating role with Treasury Board to make sure that the new legislation is observed. I do not claim that it will be easy, but that role is to demonstrate the optics and the need for the federal government to serve as an example.
As for the provinces, whatever I might want, the acts and the regulations apply only to our government and to federally regulated organizations. So it will be difficult. Our message has to be clear through the example we set. In fact, because New Brunswick is bilingual, we have made an extra effort to have the entire province covered by the legislation, even where that may not have been the case.
Senator Aucoin: I understand that you can only deal with institutions under federal jurisdiction, but the federal government transfers a whole lot of money to the provinces. Is there no way to insist that some clauses on language be included in the various agreements with the provinces, and now with the businesses located in the provinces?
Mr. Miller: I am from Quebec and I have to tell you that you have to be very, very careful, especially about keeping francophones arguing about the best way to use and apply French. It’s not one of the highlights of my career.
It’s fine in theory, but we will have to tread lightly, while ensuring that our requirements can be met. It’s all very well for the feds to impose conditions, but the provinces also have to share the same regard for both our official languages, especially for French, given its minority position in all provinces except Quebec. They have to ensure the compliance themselves. We need to work cooperatively.
So, the answer is yes, but I believe that we will have to be very subtle and very diplomatic in our dealings.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
Senator Hébert: I would like to go back to the question that my colleague Senator Gerba asked, about help and support for the businesses. Your position is that it is not automatically up to the federal government to make investments. But from the point of view of encouraging compliance, and in a world where we are trying to attract investment on a national scale and to urge our businesses to invest, could we at least establish a service where we help and support the businesses and make it easy for them to comply with the legislation? I know that it is done in other areas and in some provinces. I was wondering what your intentions are along those lines.
Mr. Miller: Senator, I would not like my previous answer to be interpreted as being against that. I was thinking in terms of the federal government’s role. Often, we have that kind of conversation with a business that does not want to comply at all if they cannot get money to do so.
The conversation is stereotypical, but it happens. The reality is that, during the transition period, we will make sure that it is possible for people to interact with the federal government and come to understand the scope and the reach of the legislation.
We know that the federal government has failed in the past. There have been no angels in the matter. There will be a cooperative relationship with the organizations affected. Generally, the smaller organizations have financial challenges, not the large, very profitable organizations. I feel that they will have to comply with the legislation; when all is said and done, there will be a net benefit. I don’t want to trivialize the costs; I just wanted to stress the importance of complying with the legislation because it is part of a worthy project for our society.
Senator Hébert: One of the objectives is to promote French in North America. We saw a little incident last week with our ambassador in Washington. I gather that the error was in good faith. If you look at the composition of the committee that Mr. Carney has established on the negotiations between Canada and the United States, there seemed to be no room for language and culture. Some have seemed to criticize that. Do you have anything to tell us in that regard?
Mr. Miller: First, as the Prime Minister said, the cultural exception is not on the table. Second, when the Bloc Québécois jokingly asked me basically the same question, I told them that no one must accuse Jean Charest of lacking culture.
Senator Hébert: Exactly.
Mr. Miller: The more serious answer would have been to emphasize that, when Jean Charest was premier, he told anyone with ears to hear that he would never compromise on anything to do with culture in the NAFTA negotiations and that he would defend it whatever the cost. That’s as clear as day. I have all the articles that were written at the time. I certainly do not want to accuse Magali Picard of not standing up for artists. She does so very well in her role at the FTQ.
This is not a trivial issue. I make no apologies. If people wanted it to be and are disappointed, I don’t want to dismiss their disappointment, but the reality is that there’s no discussion. We need people who are sensitive to the issue.
I believe that Ms. Picard and Mr. Charest are sensitive to it. People are welcome to talk to us about it. Mr. LeBlanc and I took part in a round table on culture. Mr. Solomon and I did the same when the topic was the precarious future of culture in the face of AI. The federal government is dealing with this issue sensitively and delicately these days.
[English]
Senator Patterson: I’ll be your anglophone in the group.
[Translation]
However, I am bilingual. I fully support all the regulations. But there is a challenge and the federal government can help to meet it.
[English]
It is about access to second-language training out of the bubble of eastern Ontario and western Quebec, whether people need to speak English or French, depending on the official language community that they are supporting.
I lived in Alberta for four years, and there is not a lack of desire in Canadians to learn the other official language; very often it’s a lack of access. Even in small- and medium-sized businesses of 100 people or more, one of the challenges is access. While the federal government, obviously, is not in education, the federal government has excellent programs that are available remotely to get at least a basic level of French.
One of the critical side effects of this is there is only so deep you can reach into an official language community to find the required people for your business. Positions will go vacant because people have a right to be served in the language of their choice. I’ll make this into a question so I’m being a good senator, but I wonder if there is any thought of widening access, even virtually online, to some of the excellent programs the federal government has to at least get people — and I’m going to use a federal public service standard here — to a BBB level available for these enterprises that want to comply but don’t have the tools available to them, because the will is there. Thank you.
Mr. Miller: I agree with you, senator. Can we completely fulfill the demand that is there in the context, as you highlighted, where the responsibility is largely strictly jurisdictionally that of the provinces? We’ve been through many dramatic sequences — some in Ontario — where the closure of a school was completely unacceptable.
Provinces have responsibilities towards the French language. They need to exercise them because they are part of this country. I won’t pretend to say that this is realizable in every single part of the country, but where it is and where there is a density of francophone speakers, it is a responsibility of the provinces and the federal government.
In education, we have significantly invested in second-language training at the federal level, which is important to highlight. I don’t want you to get from this conversation that I’m putting everything on the backs of the provinces, because that would be both unfair and inaccurate. However, we have a role to play here because there is a real desire in Canada, particularly where we are looking to diversify our trade routes with Europe, to be able to speak the language that is the fifth or sixth most spoken language globally. It is not easy. French is a perfectionist language. I’m raising kids in three languages, so I know the struggles of learning and teaching those languages, just as a parent.
There is a real need to ensure we’re stepping up our game, particularly at the federal level, and as part of our current examination about the francophone strategy for the next five years, that will play quite significantly into it because we see the demand and it’s there. It’s not about sprinkling small amounts of money across the country into well-meaning organizations. We have to be very targeted in what we’re trying to achieve as a federal government as opposed to sometimes sprinkling money around and hoping we’re doing a good job and going to bed thinking we’ve done a good job when the results aren’t necessarily there. We need to figure that out as part of the next strategy as my department engages in the next step in the francophone strategy that is sunsetting in the next year or so.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I would like to acknowledge that Heritage Canada is extremely capable. Therefore, it is true that Treasury Board wants to consult you about the regulations under Part VII. But we do not know how. When we read the regulations, we wonder whether they did consult you. We would like to have some information on that. You can answer in writing. People need to be confident that Heritage Canada really is consulted when it comes to Part VII.
With regard to the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, have you analyzed the costs of implementing these regulations?
My third question is about the administrative monetary penalties. We are looking for some consistency in the language services provided for the travelling public. There is a year left before certain businesses have to put the regulations into effect.
If I am in an airport and, for example, I go up to A&W — I wonder if they will end up sponsoring me — I can file a complaint if I get no service. That could lead to an administrative monetary penalty. How can we realistically be sure that airports comply with the legislation if they are not properly equipped to do so? Why did you exclude ports? We can walk around anywhere in the country, including the ports. Are you waiting for the court’s decision in Michel Thibodeau v. St. John’s International Airport Authority before you adopt the final version of the regulations?
That question has several parts, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Miller: You will have to wait for my letter to see how we cooked things up with Treasury Board. If we have to share some details, we will. First, we are dealing with two bills and three sets of regulations, so there is some overlap. Does Billy Bishop Airport in Toronto come under X? Is Air Canada in category Z? Is telecom Y included? I fully understand how confusion, and some inconsistencies, may arise.
The key, as I see it, is to make sure that is clearly in our area of jurisdiction. But I understand that that may lead to some confusion. Yes, everyone should be able to be served in English and French at A&W. In an airport, that’s not my biggest concern, where a more critical step in the process of, say, clearing customs or security might be missing. We have to talk about it, but I think it would be more helpful if you had a more detailed description of what is included and what is not. We are not really waiting for a court decision.
Senator Cormier: In your vision, is the federal government looking for better consistency in the language services provided to Canadians across the country so that we as francophones can walk from one province to the next and get appropriate services in the language of our choice? I would say that this is the ultimate goal, for me at least.
Mr. Miller: Yes. I feel that the details count for a lot in this analysis because many of these institutions, at first glance, are or seem to be federal, but actually they are not. That is another aspect of what is feasible and practical and so there may well be gaps. I am not giving excuses, I am simply explaining. If organizations or businesses jump out at you where the people should speak French, tell us about it and we will be able to include it in our analysis.
Senator Moncion: I feel in a privileged position. I am going to talk to you about money.
We are concerned that the federal government’s recent cuts are affecting the balance between the two official languages in your department. This situation is happening just as the modernized Official Languages Act is imposing ambitious new requirements. In that light, first, how will the next action plan be able to reconcile the additional responsibilities with the more limited resources? Then, what is the time frame for this plan?
Mr. Miller: First, of course, the past does not guarantee the future. But you should know that the Prime Minister has made no cuts in official languages in the most recent budget review or in the process of rationalization required of all departments. It is good news that it was important to him. I was not the minister responsible and I am not claiming the victory. But the reality is that it was not done. As ministers and members of the government, we must always be looking at places where efficiency may be increased. In the context of the review and in the next consultation process on the francophone strategy, I cannot guarantee that the amounts will be the same. I am not announcing in advance that there will be less; that will be the result of a discussion that will start over the summer.
Ms. Boyer: We are in planning mode already.
Mr. Miller: We actually discussed it a few days ago. It will begin formally this fall with a few months of consultations with the organizations that will be affected and that have received funds — in historic amounts, for goodness’ sake. I would be deceiving you if I tried to guarantee the same amounts, because discussions need to be held. But I feel that, if the Prime Minister’s actions are any indication, he has not yet made any cuts and he has chosen not to touch these very important items.
The Chair: Mr. Minister, Ms. Boyer and Mr. Bilodeau, we are grateful to you for joining us this evening to provide your remarks and to answer our questions. We appreciate it very much. On behalf of myself and my colleagues, thank you.
Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the Senate last October 8, we will now proceed to examine the regulatory framework of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
This evening, therefore, we welcome Ms. Kelly Burke, the new Commissioner of Official Languages and her team, who have appeared before the committee in the past. Please welcome Pierre Leduc, Assistant Commissioner, Strategic Orientation and External Relations, Patrick Wolfe, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance and Enforcement, and Pascale Giguère, General Counsel.
I am sure that you know the procedure. We are ready to hear your introductory remarks. They will be followed by a period of questions and answers.
Madam Commissioner, the floor is yours.
Kelly Burke, Commissioner of Official Languages Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Good evening, honourable senators.
I must acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe nation, the Indigenous People of the Ottawa Valley.
I am pleased to be with you today, for the very first time as Commissioner of Official Languages, to discuss the proposed regulations pertaining to Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Ensuring the linguistic vitality of our communities and allowing both our official languages to move forward in Canadian society — which also implies safeguarding the future of French in Quebec — is a mission close to my heart.
[English]
To begin, decades of investigations by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages have shown that breaches of Part VII generally result from federal institutions misunderstanding their obligations. Clear, practical and consistent regulations are, therefore, essential to help institutions understand their language obligations and to support the effective, lasting implementation of Part VII. These regulations have been anticipated since the act was amended in 2005 and are even more necessary following its 2023 modernization.
[Translation]
Although I welcome the tabling of the draft regulations in Parliament, I see some major gaps that should really be rectified before they come into effect. The government must take this opportunity to achieve two objectives that are both significant and urgent.
First, it must more explicitly clarify the obligations of federal institutions. Second, it must make sure that the regulations comply, not only with a broad interpretation of the act, but also the interpretation of positive measures made by the Federal Court of Appeal in Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v Canada (Employment and Social Development).
Our brief relies on the work done by Commissioner Théberge during his mandate. It presents recommendations that are intended to guarantee that the regulations specifically and effectively promote the equal status and use of French and English in Canadian society.
[English]
For example, to support institutions’ ongoing obligation to take positive measures, the draft regulations should be amended to require impact analyses for any decision that could affect the government’s commitments under Part VII. The regulation should also avoid narrowly circumscribing when an impact analysis is required. Without analyses conducted in advance of decision making, institutions may inadvertently undermine communities or the advancement of official languages.
The draft regulations should also specify more clearly when and how federal institutions must consider the priorities of communities and stakeholders. This could help ensure that stakeholder input meaningfully informs institutional decision making.
[Translation]
Federal-provincial/territorial agreements should also be strengthened. The draft regulations do not actually indicate specifically what is expected from federal institutions in terms of the measures necessary to include language clauses when agreements are negotiated. The regulations could also describe how, and how often, the language provisions in any agreement must be evaluated and monitored and what happens when they are not observed.
In addition, the draft regulations must ensure that the evaluation and monitoring mechanisms lead to concrete measures. It would be helpful to specify what institutions must do with the results. In that way, the mechanisms could achieve their ultimate purpose of guiding the institutions to change course when they are steering in the wrong direction.
[English]
Our brief also raises concerns about consultation requirements and the lack of a governance framework that clearly defines institutional responsibilities.
In short, the draft regulation must give federal institutions clearer, more practical guidance on how to implement Part VII of the act. At the same time, they must preserve the significant advances made in Canada’s language policy in recent years.
I, therefore, urge the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to consider the recommendations we put forward in order to strengthen the draft regulations.
I would be pleased to answer any questions that any of you may have in either official language.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Commissioner. We will now move directly to the time for questions and answers.
Senator Cormier: Welcome and congratulations on your appointment as the new commissioner.
We appreciate your work and we thank you for joining us here.
Ms. Burke: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: During our review, we repeatedly heard that these preliminary draft regulations lack clarity and precision and excessively repeat what the act has already set out. When reading the regulations, they seem weaker than the act. Professor Érik Labelle Westin-Eastaugh, of Université de Moncton, specifically said the following:
Defining the terms and conditions and establishing the principles is exactly about being more precise . . . .
Clearly, the Treasury Board Secretariat has regulatory authority. It has the power to define, in considerable detail, the regulatory framework that will govern the implementation of Part VII. It’s not restricted by what is exactly in the act; it can extend beyond the act. The act is only a beginning.
Do you agree with this analysis? You’ve expressed a number of concerns about what the regulations should contain.
To what extent could the Treasury Board Secretariat make additional changes to the draft regulations to make them clearer and more precise? We would have liked the Office of the Commissioner to have been involved in drafting these regulations from the beginning, because you’ve named all of the gaps that appear in our analysis of the draft regulations.
Do you agree with this analysis and, if so, how do you think we could help Treasury Board improve these regulations in our report?
Ms. Burke: First of all, regarding the regulations, they are the foundation of any interpretation of the act that will be carried out. I’ll connect this to the review that was conducted.
The act contains steps forward in the progress we need to make on the commitments contained in the act, particularly Part VII.
What we see is that there are still gaps in the implementation of the act. We believe those gaps can be addressed with regulations that are clear and provide opportunities to fully understand the obligations arising from the act. A good understanding will lead to proper implementation and compliance with the act.
There seem to be two components to the issue of how to make recommendations to address the gaps that still exist with the regulations currently under review.
First of all, the regulations contain limitations such that enforcement of the act is not as broad as it should be, and those limitations are found in the section dealing with impact analyses and the obligation to take into account communities’ obligations and priorities. There are also limitations related to the consultation required under the act.
Concerning clarity and what needs to be done so that the regulations properly support federal institutions, we also need to provide further details in the part on impact analysis, the part on federal-provincial/territorial agreements and the part on the evaluation and monitoring mechanism, as well as the guidance of the two departments responsible for the administration of the act — Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage — and there’s a third department, due to the obligations stemming from the responsibilities of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for that answer. I have a second, quicker question.
One of the concerns is that the relevant departments fully understand the regulations and fully understand their responsibilities. For example, might a mission statement that would provide context for these regulations — I’m thinking specifically about the concept of substantive equality, which is fundamental to the implementation of these regulations — be useful, in your opinion?
What can you tell us about your vision of the governance framework needed to clearly define the departments’ responsibilities?
Ms. Burke: I’ll start with the second part of the question.
When it comes to guidance on the governance framework, it’s really up to Treasury Board to identify that governance framework. First, the basic principles of that framework need to be established to ensure that the entire public service is aware of the framework to ensure uniformity.
The division of responsibilities between Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage also needs to be set out and the responsibilities of each department need to be clearly defined. This will include the parameters within which the departments will need to operate regarding impact analyses, the development of positive measures, and guidance on monitoring and auditing, to truly achieve concrete positive measures that will effectively meet the commitments.
Senator Cormier: Your answer is structured. Are you confident that the government has as clear an understanding of the governance framework?
I’ll let you respond on the principle of the initial point.
Ms. Burke: I’m not convinced that federal institutions are sufficiently aware of the responsibilities stemming from the act. In my opening remarks, I noted that we very clearly highlighted that the complaints we receive concerning Part VII of the act are related mostly to a lack of understanding of the obligations stemming from that part.
The answer to the question is that we have work to do on the education side.
On the basic principles, do you want to get into those details now?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Burke: I believe that, if we base ourselves on the case law that highlighted the basic principles for properly informing the direction we must take to enforce and interpret the act, we’ll find many very helpful principles.
First, we must adopt a broad and liberal interpretation of the act, and this is provided for in the act itself, which states so explicitly. Community vitality should be encouraged; that is the very purpose of Part VII of the act.
We must be very sensitive to the priorities and needs of communities. This means that proper consultation is required to identify the essential elements within the communities, which will help to better develop positive measures.
One of the things that stands out very clearly from the case law is that if we limit the regulations or the act with the regulations, that means we are reducing the scope of the act. That might interfere with proper implementation and good compliance.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Gerba: Congratulations, Madam Commissioner, and welcome.
You stated in your introduction that the preliminary draft regulations must ensure that the evaluation and monitoring mechanisms lead to concrete action by federal institutions.
Are you thinking of any specific measures or particular mechanisms that should be included in the regulations? If so, which ones?
Ms. Burke: When we talk about “concrete measures,” they should always be measures that address the purpose of the act. The goal of Part VII is primarily community vitality, protection of the official languages — specifically French — and opportunities for lifelong learning.
The positive measures that could be implemented are partly identified in the act itself, which allows for concrete measures on the ground, such as education programs for a vibrant community through initiatives that the government could establish, such as programs for supporting legal challenges, for example.
I believe that the purpose of concrete measures is to identify initiatives that will lead to results in meeting the commitments of Part VII; it’s not just about forming a committee. I think this is where we’ll need to be specific about everything that federal institutions could do, beyond preparing for concrete objectives, by truly developing special projects that will fully meet these three commitments in the act.
Senator Gerba: Thank you very much for this answer.
The Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and the Charter of the French Language assign different roles to specific entities.
Can you tell us more about the roles of the following entities: The committee to promote French, at the federal level, and the francization committee in Quebec, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which is a federal body, and the Minister of the French Language and the Quebec Office of the French Language?
In your opinion, is the definition of these roles clear enough?
Ms. Burke: As for the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, we are currently evaluating it, and we will do the same with the related regulations. For the moment, my team and I are working on developing the answers we can provide to your questions.
For this evening, we specifically prepared for Part VII, but we intend to come back once we have completed our review to properly advise you on these matters.
Senator Gerba: Very well, thank you.
Senator Henkel: Welcome, Ms. Burke, and congratulations again.
Welcome, Ms. Giguère, Mr. Leduc, and Mr. Wolfe.
My question concerns section 1 of the regulations, which deals with definitions and stipulates that whenever a federal department creates, amends, or revokes a policy, it must consider whether that decision could affect official language minority communities, but only when it involves, and I quote, “significant action.” No one really knows what that means.
For example, closing the only federal office in a francophone city or cutting funding to a community organization, would that be considered significant action? If, for example, the department says no, is it exempt from any analysis?
Are you concerned that this lack of detail might allow or even lead to a decline in the quality of services offered to minority communities on the ground?
Ms. Burke: We have the same concerns regarding the term “significant action,” which is included in the definition of the word “initiative” in the regulations.
What we see — and this is what comes out of the investigations conducted by the Office of the Commissioner — is that the failure to sufficiently elaborate or specify what a “significant action” might mean implies that there will be decisions that will not be subject to an impact analysis. This means that, yes, communities will surely be affected by that.
What we found during the course of our investigations is that decisions related to funding agreements with third parties may not be included in these concepts of “significant action” and “initiative” as those are defined in the regulations as events of national significance and the closure of federal offices. Beyond that, this definition of “initiative” contains two exclusions: personnel management and administrative services. This means that, in the context of decisions affecting these sectors, with these issues there will be some —
Senator Henkel: Some impacts.
Ms. Burke: There will be some impacts and ambiguity —
Senator Henkel: Absolutely.
Ms. Burke: — with respect to the enforcement of the regulations and the act.
Senator Henkel: Thank you.
The draft regulations include language clauses in federal-provincial agreements, but with no real binding mechanisms. However, as we know, access to services in French is unequal. What strikes me is that only 35% of eligible children outside Quebec attend a francophone daycare, due to a lack of spots.
Knowing that the French educational continuum is essential to the vitality of communities, are you afraid that the regulations will contribute to maintaining these inequalities?
Ms. Burke: Federal-provincial/territorial, or FPT, agreements are essential to establishing funding for schools and the survival of early childhood education programs and schools, in general.
“Lack of spots” is a recurring theme because we often do not have enough funding to maintain the education programs.
Regarding the language clauses in FPT agreements, we noted in our brief that the language clauses in the agreements are not adequately defined. “Necessary measures” are terms used to highlight where the duty exists so that FPT agreements reflect the language clauses to support the programs you are referring to.
In our opinion, it is essential to further clarify the expectations regarding compliance agreements, bolster the agreements, and specify what the term “necessary measures” means. Necessary measures should include the needs and priorities of communities; this specifically concerns early childhood education and education programs.
At the very least, the minimum content of the clauses to be included in those agreements should be specified, and the manner and frequency of the evaluations of the agreements, whether they contain language clauses or not, should be generally structured. If there are none, federal institutions are not relieved of their obligations to find ways to include these clauses in all agreements signed with the provinces and territories.
The regulations could also indicate, when agreements do not have language clauses, what steps need to be taken and the consequences of not including language clauses in those agreements.
This is where we stand on ways to enhance the responsibilities arising from this part of the regulations and the act.
Senator Henkel: Thank you.
Senator Aucoin: Hello, commissioner; I’m glad to see you again.
You seem to have clearly understood and identified all the shortcomings in the bill. With all your recommendations and the points you’ve made, you seem to have a good grasp of what could be done or should be done for official language minority communities to ensure that the act is applied adequately and consistently across the country.
Since that is not immediately the case, and since there are several gaps and several definitions that are unclear, isn’t there a risk that you’ll have more complaints sent to your office regarding compliance with the spirit of the act, with all the businesses . . . . I believe the minister said that 1,300 businesses in Canada will be subject to the act.
Ms. Burke: Can you repeat the last part of the question?
Senator Aucoin: When the 1,300 Canadian businesses become subject to the act or the regulations, isn’t there a risk that there will be more complaints? If we look at how the provinces and certain institutions or departments enforced the act — I mentioned provinces, but I should say that some departments did not comply with the act or received several complaints — aren’t we likely to see more complaints about the businesses that will be subject to the regulations?
The Chair: Just to clarify, there are two things: There is Part VII of the act, but there are also the new regulations regarding the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, to which Senator Aucoin is referring when he talks about the 1,300 businesses.
Senator Aucoin: Excuse me; yes, I should have clarified.
Ms. Burke: Okay. Regarding the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, we fully intend to come back to answer your questions.
I will still answer the question about complaints related to Part VII. Until federal institutions provide a clear and well‑understood definition, there will be ambiguity in the enforcement of the act. There will be several different ways to enforce the regulations and the act. This means that, yes, there may be complaints. That might help us clarify our expectations regarding federal institutions in the enforcement of the act. That said, complaints also help us identify where, in federal institutions, there may be gaps related to understanding. This means that I don’t know. I’m in the process of drafting a response to the question that concerns two parts of our mandate, but as for Part VII, that is my answer.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Along the same lines, I’m thinking about your role as an investigator within federal institutions. If the regulations are clear enough, I imagine it will be much easier for you to investigate and evaluate federal institutions in relation to Part VII of the act. If the regulations remain as is — not clear enough, as you have said several times — what does that mean for the Office of the Commissioner in terms of evaluating federal institutions?
Ms. Burke: The impact for us will be uncertainty regarding the government’s expectations surrounding enforcement of the act. That’s why we insisted that Treasury Board identify, with an established framework that applies to all departments, the expectations regarding enforcement of the act and how it plans to comply with them. On one hand, Treasury Board is responsible for enforcing the act. It’s expressly provided for in the act. With the support of Canadian Heritage, Treasury Board must develop the guidance that will enable us to better implement and monitor the act on our end, in accordance with the expectations of these two institutions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: What are your main concerns and what challenges do you face in the work you will have to do as a commissioner’s office regarding the implementation of Part VII of the regulations? I’m thinking, for example, of impact analyses. In your brief, you state that impact analyses must take place over the course of an institution’s business life cycle, for example. That’s quite right, but my question is actually this: When we look at the new responsibilities — or those that should be specified for federal institutions — and when we look at how you’ll keep a close eye, so to speak, on federal institutions to ensure that they meet their obligations, what are your biggest challenges?
I’m not necessarily talking about funding, although I sometimes wonder if you’re well equipped and have enough funds to do your work, especially considering the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act. What would keep you up at night, for example, when it comes to the implementation of the regulations?
Ms. Burke: I’m sleeping very well these days. Let’s start with the team at the Office of the Commissioner. We’re currently developing best practices internally to effectively monitor implementation of the act. We still have work to do to properly implement the approach we’d like to adopt.
However, one thing is certain: right now, if you’re referring to the impact analysis — because it’s an essential element from the outset of the review of actions that federal institutions must take — what concerns me is that the regulations identify specific instances when the analysis is to be conducted. For us, that’s not enough, because the analysis should be conducted on an ongoing basis. Some steps in the process won’t necessarily have an impact analysis.
There is, however, an impact on our communities. So, if the impact analysis is limited — I’m specifically referring to the design and development of programs, substantial amendments, updates, or renewal, among other things — that means that some steps are missing in the process. There are planning, implementation, evaluation and reporting stages.
These are just a few additional steps that are not considered in the impact analysis that will need to be carried out. If there is no evaluation throughout the process, that means that the evaluation might not take place until the end of a project’s timeline or until it’s renewed; so, much later in the process. It won’t take into account the environment of official language minority communities, their needs and their situation, which is always evolving. We won’t have fully grasped the negative impacts that could occur during those stages because we won’t have analyzed the negative effects, which means they’ll go unnoticed. What keeps me up at night is that we don’t have a process that properly covers two key elements: the consultation and the consideration of community priorities in this process to clearly determine the path to follow and properly frame the commitments related to Part VII of the act.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for that answer. You mentioned consultations. You may have answered this question already, but what is fundamentally missing in the regulations to clarify what it means to conduct consultations? We’re talking about dialogue, consultations, and all that. What can you tell us to help us better understand what the actual requirements of a good consultation are?
Ms. Burke: I’m going to give you a two-part answer. First, the regulations limit consultation.
The words used in section 6 of the regulations refer to analyses based, as much as possible, on the outcome of consultations, on research and on evidence. We insist on using case law to clarify the definition of “to the extent possible.” For us, the duty to consult exists, unless it is impossible to do so. This aligns with everything in the act, which gives us a broad and liberal scope of interpretation.
Secondly, the regulations limit the circumstances that require federal institutions to consult. I’m referring to paragraphs 6(1)(a) to (c). It’s limited to the development of programs and the negotiation of FPT agreements; it’s also necessary to determine whether the decisions could have a negative impact on the agreements.
The impact is that by limiting consultation in this way, we risk not having the communities and stakeholders at the table. They will be absent in certain circumstances. Without consultation, we can’t identify the negative impacts, given that it’s the communities who will confirm whether there are any. The communities seem to be best positioned to determine what type of consultation is necessary.
That’s the first part. Do I have time for the second part?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Burke: The second part relates to the issue of how to further strengthen the duty to consult. “Better equip” means when and how we will consult.
Federal institutions must be subject to a duty to consult unless it is impossible to do so. If applicable, they must concretely prove that this duty could not be fulfilled due to that impossibility. Also, those consultations must take place upstream of decisions.
Senator Cormier: Thank you, Madam Commissioner.
The Chair: The Official Languages Act provides that federal institutions must not only consult communities but also seriously consider their opinions with an open mind, while at the same time being prepared to modify their positive action.
How can this sort of principle be included in regulations?
Ms. Burke: Since this principle is already in the act, we can refer to what is stated in the act and emphasize that the regulations must be enforced as strictly as provided for when it comes to the seriousness and willingness that institutions must demonstrate in consulting with communities. Taking it seriously is more than just taking notes.
Seriousness truly lies in the steps federal institutions take to implement what they agree to and the priorities they consider in developing their positive action.
Senator Moncion: What you just described is a confusing system full of uncertainties, which may require a redefinition of your role on how to conduct investigations. It seems to be becoming increasingly difficult because of these requirements.
I’d like to hear about the kind of open-mindedness you have. Since you mentioned regulations with a very broad and liberal scope, you’ll need to redefine your role in all of this. What exactly is this open-mindedness when it comes to Canadian Heritage and Treasury Board?
Ms. Burke: That’s what needs to be defined. Open‑mindedness comes back to the responsibility and mandate of the Commissioner’s Office: Our role is to make progress, not to be confused about the guidance to be established by Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage. As soon as that framework is developed, institutions will be able to comply with it. Even by starting with baby steps, we’ll succeed at building a framework that the Office of the Commissioner will be able to evaluate to determine whether we are making progress or not.
We need regulations that support the act so that it can achieve its goals: community vitality, the advancement of French language and educational programs, but above all progress towards true equality between our two official languages in Canada. What we need is clear guidance with objectives: “when” and “how” institutions should act. Although the regulations are procedural, we are trying to achieve results through this procedure to guide federal institutions in this context of uncertainty. That’s what we need: very clear guidance.
Senator Moncion: We expect the guidance to include another step — we talked about the act and the regulations — but we’re still waiting for something else after the regulations. I believe that it’s precisely that guidance.
Ms. Burke: I’ll respond very briefly. This is not the first time consultations have been necessary as part of government initiatives. Consultations have already taken place in other sectors and other industries.
We could draw inspiration from the guidance that exists elsewhere as a starting point, then address the gaps as we move through the process. By consulting the communities, we ensure that they can identify what is not working, so that we can make adjustments as the act and regulations are implemented and enforced.
Senator Moncion: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: By “guidance,” do you mean something different than what we’ve heard? According to some witnesses, we have the act, the regulations and then the guidelines. Where does guidance fit into that?
Does the word “guidance” mean “guidelines,” more or less?
Ms. Burke: It includes the guidelines. I think there’s work to be done on the regulations as they relate to the “when” and the “how.” There are opportunities to further guide expectations regarding analyses, monitoring and consultation. I believe there are opportunities here for improving the regulations. Certainly, there will be guidance afterwards — with the policies and implementation documents that Treasury Board will develop in partnership with Canadian Heritage — but these do not have the force of law. This includes the guidelines.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Gerba: Some experts heard by the committee highlighted the difficulty in accessing federal agreements that contain language clauses, particularly due to the lack of a registry. This situation limits the analysis of those agreements and hinders transparency. How could we fix this?
Ms. Burke: We raised the issue of transparency as a goal for the next version of these regulations. This desire to be transparent is also reflected in the briefs submitted by some stakeholders.
For us, I believe it’s important to establish mechanisms in the section related to auditing and monitoring the implementation of the act, and well-established mechanisms in the guidance I referred to.
When are the agreements expected to be evaluated? What will monitoring the implementation of those agreements look like? Finally — I think this is one of the most important parts — what steps will be taken if the language clauses are not fulfilled?
There is the issue of transparency, reporting and consequences if those requirements are not met or incorporated into the funding agreements.
Senator Gerba: Thank you for that answer. Professor François Larocque suggested a solution: having a registry. What do you think about that?
Ms. Burke: I don’t have the details about the registry the professor is referring to, but it’s a path to consider. If this can address some of our concerns, we’re willing, at the very least, to consider the merits of his proposal.
Senator Gerba: He says that a public registry could list all agreements containing language clauses and that it would be available for those who want to consult it. It might be a solution to consider.
Ms. Burke: Possibly. Yes, the team and I will evaluate this proposal and resume the conversation on the matter later.
Senator Gerba: Good.
Senator Henkel: The regulations do not designate any responsible party, any indicator, or any reporting mechanism. In your investigations, is the lack of a clearly identified responsible party currently a major barrier to the implementation of Part VII?
Ms. Burke: It’s still an issue. We still don’t know who is leading and who is following. So, what we’ve identified, specifically, is the need to clarify the responsibilities of the department, first, but also of Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage officials. It’s important to clearly recall the division of responsibilities, those that belong to both; if who is responsible is not clearly identified, it will be difficult even for the Office of the Commissioner to work with either one. The approach we would take is to work with both and try to find solutions with both. The act revolves around the concept of collaboration. If we too can collaborate with these people who, in good faith, are trying to enforce the act and the regulations in effect, we’re here to support them and to find solutions.
Senator Henkel: This leads me to ask you this question: Do you have the ability to demand that indicator managers be appointed very quickly, so that you can effectively move forward in your reflections? Also, the modernized Official Languages Act now grants you certain powers, which are binding, specifically regarding administrative monetary penalties, but only with respect to certain entities in the transportation sector. In this context, do you believe you have the necessary legal tools to ensure compliance with Part VII, or are you still dependent solely on the goodwill of the institutions?
Ms. Burke: Let’s start with performance indicators; it’s very important to define them in the monitoring process, because what gets measured gets done. Therefore, it’s essential for us to identify and be able to evaluate the indicators that the institutions put in place.
Regarding the powers, you’re right: monetary administrative penalties are limited in their enforcement, as are the orders, which so far have been limited to Part VII of the act. I intend to fully exercise all of the powers I have in my tool box, which will help me ensure proper implementation and compliance with the act, but this comes back to Senator Moncion’s question: Until we have the parameters by which we can evaluate all of this with certainty, it puts us in a grey area regarding the powers we would like to exercise.
Senator Cormier: Madam Commissioner, we’ve heard a lot of concerns from the beginning about the relationship between Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage. We know that, under the regulations, Treasury Board is required to consult Canadian Heritage. The minister did not describe in detail how that was done, but under the act and section 43 of the act, we know that Canadian Heritage has a series of obligations and powers to ensure that the act is properly implemented.
What is your perspective on the fact that the regulations only cover part of section 41, but do not cover section 43, which actually falls under Canadian Heritage and seems to me to be much more anchored in the actual implementation of the act on the ground? Also, more generally, what do you think would help reassure communities about the ability of Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage to truly work together to implement the act and, ultimately, the regulations?
Ms. Burke: This comes back to the issue of collaboration. I will strongly emphasize that the act requires it, and it is also provided for in case law, which highlights the importance of working together. You’re right: Canadian Heritage has very specific responsibilities, as does Treasury Board. Regarding section 41, first, concerns are raised about how Canadian Heritage will be able to fulfill the mandate prescribed by the act, because there is no well-established process and how it is implemented is left to Canadian Heritage’s discretion.
Section 41 is also not very restrictive. What we’re emphasizing is that Canadian Heritage and Treasury Board will have to work together, because this part of the act provides for everything that facilitates the exercise of constitutional rights under section 23. So, we can emphasize that Canadian Heritage must establish a very specific process for implementing the commitments found in section 41 of the act, specifically setting minimum requirements and properly calculating the number of rights holders, while the process that the minister —
Senator Cormier: Is that excluded from the regulations for now?
Ms. Burke: That is yet to be confirmed; there are no details on that topic. Even the tools . . . . Section 41 discusses the use of appropriate tools to carry out the work specified in that section. For us, developing the process should be the responsibility of Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage, in consultation with the communities, if possible. At the very least, communities should understand the process the minister will use to properly count the eligible parties who fall under the category of subsection 41(4) of the act.
I’ll continue. Canadian Heritage has responsibilities that need to be better defined under section 43 and subsection 43(2) as well. It has the responsibility, even in its annual report, to clearly specify how it fulfilled its mission. The whole-of-government strategy on official languages could include guidance on the process for estimating the number of eligible parties — I said that — and the minister’s responsibility for implementation, specifically under section 43. What the minister did could be described in his annual report so that we know very clearly what he did.
Senator Cormier: In other words, you’re saying that it’s not only Treasury Board that has responsibilities regarding the implementation of Part VII; Canadian Heritage has several obligations and the regulations do not specify them, but they must be taken into account. So, we’ll be counting on you, Madam Commissioner, to ensure compliance with —
Ms. Burke: I want him to state, in his annual report, that there was collaboration with Treasury Board to decide on the course of action.
Senator Cormier: Exactly. Thank you very much.
The Chair: That brings us to the end of our hour. On behalf of my colleagues, I sincerely thank you and your team, Madam Commissioner, for being with us this evening. It was an excellent discussion. We’ll see where this leads us. Good luck.
[English]
Welcome to our third and last panel this evening.
This evening, we have, from the Community Health and Social Services Network, Jennifer Johnson, Executive Director; and from the English Language Arts Network, we have Miranda Castravelli, Executive Director.
You know the routine. You have approximately five minutes each for opening remarks, and then we’ll go to a period of questions and answers. If I understood properly, Ms. Johnson will begin this evening. The floor is yours.
Jennifer Johnson, Executive Director, Community Health and Social Services Network: Thank you. Honourable senators, it’s a real pleasure to be back. I wanted to start off by saying thank you for the wonderful report on barriers to access to health services. I really felt like our communities were listened to. We were reflected in the document, and I think a document like that is critical for the next action plan. No doubt, it will have an important impact on that.
Thank you for inviting me to speak with you as part of your study on the regulatory framework for Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
My name is Jennifer Johnson, and I am the Executive Director of the Community Health and Social Services Network, CHSSN; it’s all about health and social services. Our mission is to improve access to health and social services for the English-speaking population of Quebec.
I’m here to share a community development perspective on why clear regulations under Part VII are essential. I’ve spent more than 20 years working directly with English-speaking communities across Quebec. Since 2003, I’ve applied for, managed, implemented and delivered Health Canada funding that has transformed the communities I’ve worked with.
I’ve seen first-hand what strong federal commitments can achieve, and I’ve also seen what happens when those commitments weaken or when the mechanisms around them become unclear.
For English-speaking Quebecers, Part VII is the foundation of our relationship with the federal government. It is the part of the act that requires the federal government to support the vitality of official language minority communities and to take positive measures to help them thrive.
But Quebec’s context is unique. There is growing pressure to remove obligations on how federal funds are spent and to require that all federal funding be routed through the provincial government. Without strong regulatory safeguards, the impact on English-speaking Quebecers would be significant.
When federal funds move through systems without clear expectations, transparency, or protected streams, the original purpose can be diluted. And in that dilution, the English-speaking community loses what was intended for them. I’ve seen this happen very concretely. One example is the Youth Mental Health Fund that launched in 2024. The federal call for proposals clearly stated that applications should include official language minority communities, it even listed CHSSN, and our sister organization, Société Santé en français, SSF, as resources in the application, but Quebec organizations were deemed ineligible.
Upon further investigation, I found the funds had been transferred to Quebec and placed into the Aire Ouverte program, a provincial initiative that wasn’t eligible under the federal call and applied no language lens. This is exactly the kind of situation strong regulations are meant to prevent.
Another example is the Quebec-Canada services agreement. When Minister Skeete announced our most recent program under this agreement, he publicly stated that there were “no obligations” on how Quebec was to spend the money.
Our organization did receive funding, but the message was unmistakable: Quebec wants maximum flexibility with no conditions. Strong regulations must ensure federal obligations under Part VII cannot be waived or diluted through intergovernmental agreements.
Many English-speaking community organizations in Quebec are multi-sectoral, which means a single organization can work in health, culture, employment, heritage and community development. This reflects the practical needs of our dispersed minority communities where limited population size, geography and institutional capacity often require a single organization to work in multiple areas as opposed to francophone organizations in the same region.
But major provincial programs, such as the Programme de soutien aux organismes communautaires, or PSOC, do not fund multi-sectoral organizations. Others do not prioritize smaller minority-language communities.
If federal funding flowed through provincial mechanisms, many English-speaking communities would be ineligible or forced to create multiple organizations.
Regulations must ensure that federal positive measures are not dependent on provincial eligibility rules. So what is needed? First, Part VII obligations must be clear and enforceable in federal-provincial agreements. Provinces should be required to demonstrate how federal funds support English-speaking Quebecers, with measurable outcomes.
Second, federal departments should establish dedicated, protected funding envelopes for minority-language communities with transparent reporting. I believe Health Canada is an excellent example to follow.
Third, positive measures must be strengthened and clearly defined, especially in the health sector. Reporting should focus on outcomes, not just the amount of money spent.
Fourth, community networks must be recognized as essential delivery infrastructure. These networks are how federal measures reach the English-speaking population. They must be stabilized and strengthened.
Fifth, direct federal-to-community funding must be protected. For more than 20 years, direct federal funding to CHSSN and McGill University has supported training, retention, health networking and innovation, always in conformity with the Charter of the French Language.
Regulations should be more explicit in outlining and supporting positive measures that are direct to the community beneficiaries and not subsumed under intergovernmental transfers.
Finally, consultations must meaningfully engage the English-speaking community in Quebec. CHSSN’s extensive knowledge base should inform decisions from the very beginning of policy and program design and not validate them after the fact.
Honourable senators, I have witnessed firsthand over the past 25 years how strong federal commitments under Part VII strengthen the vitality of English-speaking communities in Quebec in the area of health. Strong regulations are what make those commitments real. Your work deeply matters to the people I serve. Thank you for your commitment to protecting Canada’s official languages.
The Chair: Thank you.
Miranda Castravelli, Executive Director, English Language Arts Network: Senators and committee members, thank you again for inviting me back to respond to Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
For those who don’t know me, my name is Miranda Castravelli and I am the Executive Director of the English Language Arts Network, a Montreal-based organization dedicated to supporting English-speaking artists and art communities. We advocate for their rights while, at the same time, forging pathways for better harmony and collaboration within the two official languages groups.
In our invitation to appear, we were asked a couple of direct questions about whether we were satisfied with the regulations and whether it met our expectations.
To be direct, the short answer is no. The regulations, as they are currently drafted, don’t meet our expectations. Honestly, the monitoring mechanisms could be better defined.
I think a lot of what I’m going to say is going to echo a lot of what Commissioner Burke said, that there’s value to having strengthened and well-defined things because it allows people to have clear guidelines of where they need to go.
We have had some positive interactions though, before I say anything else about where I think there may be lack.
It is important for me to address that those government institutions that have been trying to work with us have actually been helpful, such as the CRTC and Telefilm, but especially PCH who is on the ground all the time with us, trying to navigate what does it really mean and where do these things get at even now?
Unfortunately, the new regulations, as proposed, don’t really help to clarify everything, even though there’s a little bit more than what there was before.
But, in fact, the issues don’t begin in the regulations; they begin with section 41(2) of the act itself, which explicitly recognizes French as being vulnerable in the greater English context of Canada, but not English in the Quebec context as being vulnerable, in the greater French context.
I think it is important to highlight that this does two things.
First, by lumping English-speaking Quebecers in with the greater majority of Canada, it ignores the day-to-day reality on the ground. It creates a blind spot for federal institutions that may not understand what the lived experience actually is in Quebec. I mentioned this last time I was here, but I will say it again: It is a very different cultural identity for an English-speaking Quebecer than an anglophone from elsewhere in the country.
The construction of culture starts from childhood. Not exposed to the same influences, the outcomes of personalities, values and identities are not the same. In general, Anglophone Quebecers are proud to be Quebecers and Saint-Jean is a high holiday for all of us, regardless, with all that entails.
The second thing is that this definition, what it does right now is to leave the door open to those who play identity politics in Quebec. In essence, this is mostly political posturing to wind people up and secure votes.
It’s important to know that even the majority of Quebecers, Anglo or Franco, don’t want this. I’ve had many francophone colleagues apologize to me on behalf of our elected officials for the speeches that have often created chaos and fear. This is not an issue of separate identity, but a political culture that punishes inclusion.
Many of them are reticent to speak out for us, however, because they are afraid that they will either be criticized or it will endanger their own sources of funding.
Many people I meet day to day are surprised, even appalled, when they hear the facts. It is genuinely shocking to them to see the divide between the speeches from the political class and what is happening in their everyday lives.
The presumption from the everyday Quebecer, if I can permit myself to be so bold, is to live and let live. But this is not what is happening at the political level. Quebec, in what is touted as an attempt to seek autonomy and protect culture, is the process of enacting a variety of laws which, taken independently, are largely innocuous; but when you consider them together, they create a wide area of concern. In particular, we could mention M-30, Bill 96, Bill 1. When taken in concert, limit funding, expression and, overall, creates a chilling effect on the inclusion of the Québécois identity.
There is legitimate reason to fear that this atmosphere will engender the loss of this distinct and protected segment of our culture. Is that benefiting Quebec? I think some political opportunists might think so. But, overall, this negates the contribution that today’s anglophones bring to the province.
While there’s been some scale back on Bill 1, there’s still a lot of uncertainty and gaps. When our official languages regulations don’t cover these explicitly, the interpretation of the act is at risk of being used in the ways it was not intended.
So to return to the questions as stated, there are two things that are lacking to make this a truly representative process.
First and foremost, we need to define our terms. There needs to be a better definition. What is vitality? What measures it? How will we know that we have achieved it? At the moment, there is no real definition so it makes it a little bit vague.
Second, when we say “consultation,” how is that fulfilled? Who is included? When does it happen? Consultation, ideally, should be in the construction and not done after the fact and include a widespread number of voices from diverse corners of the English-speaking communities, much like the commissioner just said. For the francophone community, the only thing is we would like it to also be applied to the English community.
To be clear, these regulations are not new. The latest draft only slightly modifies what was there before. In that time, what have been the results? By every metric, English speakers are being denied access, employment, educational opportunities and, lately, even denied health care where communication and understanding are the most vital.
We have sent in statistics to this committee previously, but also to other government bodies. You can see that across the board with similar or even higher levels of education, anglophone artists make 30-50% less than their francophone counterparts. Certainly, this does not demonstrate vitality and proves unequivocally that they do not automatically find their audience in the rest of Canada. They still have to physically live and exist in Quebec. People are not an abstract idea.
However, with a lack of parameters, the fact that there’s a lot of English in Canada seems to be enough of a justification for financial allocation and distribution. This doesn’t work, though.
As for the last part of the question, our expectations of the federal government, well, bluntly, we would ask that you do not let law creep happen because these regulations leave too much space for autonomy where there should be limits. We also need greater transparency as it concerns Canada and Quebec agreements where federal funds are being used at both levels. If these do not fully support the intention of the Official Languages Act, I think it needs to be made public.
I do understand the reticence to revise the law every time somebody has an opinion and to leave some room to maneuver because no one can predict every single event. But in this case, we consider that the gaps are too big.
We recognize that Quebec is a distinct society. The goal of every society is to ensure that everyone, regardless of their background, gets a fair opportunity. Whether for education, housing, jobs or security, we are asking for the federal government to step in to protect the Charter rights which we have been granted, and not to allow them to be slowly frayed over time.
As a last word, I want to address the explicit mention of not causing harm within the regulations. The benefit of one group does not have to be the detriment of the other, but that does not serve often in election times. Preservation doesn’t have to mean competition. We have many examples of cooperation and collaboration, and this goes over decades. It is always to the benefit of both groups, and especially it is to the benefit of the public, who is not torn between different realities.
I think the question is, do we believe that all people are equal or not? If so, then we cannot place politics over actual survivability. The mechanisms must support actual effects, not just be mentions of a mechanism, and they must be constructed in cooperation with experts who can help mitigate how they play out.
Financial contributions from the federal government should come with parameters of equal space and resources. There are other ways of doing this more hands-on as well. I know there is a major project of reporting and measuring and modernizing that is in the work together. I believe Madam Boyer was here earlier testifying to those sorts of procedures. Maybe we can work from the ground up and help build what equality looks like with the cultural institutions who are placed to help adoption and results.
Today, I speak for the English Language Arts Network, or ELAN, but we are in active collaboration with others. The Community Health and Social Services Network, or CHSSN, is here with us today. We also maintain relations with most of the other large anglophone groups.
We can speak with a united voice. We just need the mandate to do so. If we are invited to be a true partner, I believe we can achieve incredible results that will boost the economy, as well as the voice of Canadian sovereignty in all its provincial facets. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll move on to a period of questions and answers.
Senator Cormier: Welcome, and thank you for your presentations.
I have some questions for Ms. Johnson first. You said that we should strengthen positive measures in the health sector. Could you give some examples so we understand exactly how the regulation deals or should deal with that?
Ms. Johnson: It’s around ensuring that there’s funding specifically for health and social services and that there is capacity to have a community-federal direct relationship. I think the regulations are also critical with regard to protecting the English-speaking community’s access to those resources as well.
Senator Cormier: If I understand what was just said — because my next question was, should the federal government consider direct federal responsibility for communities where agreements with provincial and territorial governments cannot guarantee compliance with its obligation under Part VII?
Ms. Johnson: Yes, absolutely. I gave several examples. When the federal money is subject to provincial authorities in terms of deciding where the funding is going, the intention of the money is often lost, and the purpose for those resources is often not fulfilled when it is directed through the province.
Senator Cormier: Do you think that federal institutions in Quebec have the means to clearly understand the distinction between the goal of enhancing the vitality of Quebec’s English linguistic communities as set out in section 41(1) of the Official Languages Act and the goal of protecting and promoting French as set out in section 41(2)? My question is to both of you.
To be clear, do we have challenges because federal institutions in Quebec don’t really understand how this works? And what would you suggest, then?
Ms. Johnson: In my case, around health and social services, there really aren’t any federal institutions that are delivering services. But, most definitely, I’ve seen it in my personal life dealing with federal institutions that the importance of supporting the vitality of English-speaking communities is lost.
Ms. Castravelli: I can give you a concrete example. ELAN runs a project that is funded by PCH to exactly bring the two language groups together. We’re funding artists to do things in English but make them accessible for people in French. In order to get clarity on how that was going to match the regulations within the parameters that were set, which were sort of vague and — for example, does it fall for this, and if somebody is from Ontario, does that also count? What if some of them are in Quebec and some of them are not? And the amount of work those poor people at PCH had to do for us to get clarity was nuts. They are wonderful, and we couldn’t function without them. Thank God they’re there to be able to unravel this for us, because we would never have gotten to the end of it on our own of what it actually means. But they’re not equipped to know even themselves — it takes them a long time to figure out and to kind of go up the scale and make a decision. Wouldn’t it be so much easier if we could have some clarity and very specific definitions?
We say vitality. Everyone knows what that means, kind of viscerally, is this vital, is that vital. But without a definition on paper, when it comes down to project by project, we’re not giving our officials the tools to be able to say, yes, this falls within the parameters or, no, this doesn’t qualify. There are so many variables on the ground that, please, let’s try to give them a little bit of support so we can all move a little faster and be more efficient.
Senator Cormier: You spoke about the vulnerability of English-speaking communities. We often hear that the challenge — I hear this from English speakers in Quebec — in Quebec for the English-speaking community is not the language. You won’t lose your language. What’s important is the vitality of your communities, the way that you can live together and have cultural activities and all that together.
Will the regulation, as it is articulated, help the vitality of the communities? If not, what should we do? What should we add?
Ms. Castravelli: You know how Part IV(1) or IV(2) says the francophone language? Well, I would like the exact same thing for the English language within the province of Quebec. I think that would be the first step to solving quite a lot of problems. With reason, there have been a lot of francophones who have been excluded historically.
The problem is, since 1980 or so, the reversal has happened in Quebec specifically. Quebec is a very particular issue. It’s the idea of recognizing that those who were once in power are no longer in power, and by explicitly stating that is the reality within the province, it then limits the interpretation of any other process or program that might come and be applied to this thing. First, I would start with an explicit mention.
Second, I would echo what the commissioner said before, very specific mechanisms, and all the mechanisms that apply to one will then also automatically apply to the other if they are explicitly stated from the beginning.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: What you have been telling us and what we have heard from many others is the lack of definition in the regulation, the lack of data or how to collect the data so it would help. You’ve also spoken about the lack of measures to evaluate where the money is going. These are things that we are aware of on the francophone side, which is the same on the anglophone side, understanding that the ambiguity that is associated with the regulation doesn’t put any onus on anyone to provide clear outputs.
You seem to agree with this. How can you change that, other than saying that we have to put more definitions, because this has been identified? We’ve identified it.
Ms. Johnson: The community definitely is the authority on identifying what is a good way to measure an impact. I think the community has to be part of the consultation whenever it is explored as to how to improve it, because I find that sometimes these types of output definitions are created without the community’s input. Then it’s put forward as, “What do you think?” We think we could have done it better or differently.
I would advise getting the community involved right away in the definitions for vitality, definitions for indicators, how are you going to measure impact, build a committee that involves the community sector? Please include the English-speaking community as well in a process before everything gets on paper.
Ms. Castravelli: I don’t really have much to add to specifics, but there are modernization tools that could help us, things like being able to put some effort into teaching people how to become more reliant and how to measure.
We also have to look at the non-monetary metrics as well. How many people does it touch? How many people in the community were affected by this? How many children were inspired by a school program, for example? There are different kinds of metrics that could be built for levels of success and vitality, but ultimately in culture, can an artist stay in a community they were born if that’s what they choose to do? Can they make a living doing what they were trained to do? That is the fundamental definition of vitality. Can I thrive and make a living, or do I have to move to a big city to make it? Even then, do I have a chance?
How many people are staying in the arts and how many people are leaving? It’s not exclusive to the Anglo community. Artists always struggle everywhere and that is a whole other story. At least with the money we have here, let’s figure out what the vitality would look like on the ground. It’s exactly what Jennifer said. We know what it is when we see it. Let us help to contribute pre-emptively to the definition of what those things are. Does that answer your question?
Senator Moncion: Yes, it does. It is the same situation for francophones outside of Quebec.
Ms. Castravelli: Yes.
Senator Moncion: And this ambiguity serves some purposes by remaining vague and not being defined properly. I’ll stop there.
You mentioned “law creep.”
Ms. Castravelli: Yes, sorry; it is a technical term called “tech creep” where you start with one thing and it becomes a thing like this. You start with one little legislation and then it’s another little legislation and another one and another one and suddenly it becomes this monster that you can’t handle or manage. That’s what I mean by “law creep.”
Senator Moncion: Okay, thank you. We can draw a parallel between what the commissioner was saying as to how do we implement this without having the clarity of information that is being provided.
The other thing you said was to protect Charter rights. Can you elaborate on that, please?
Ms. Castravelli: Yes. In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have the right to operate in both English and French, and it’s the official language of our choosing. That’s under our Charter and is protected, but I’ll tell you in Quebec, it doesn’t often feel that way. Can I sort of leave it at that?
Senator Moncion: Yes, thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome. My first question is for both of you.
Were you consulted by the Treasury Board Secretariat when the consultations were held from 2024 to 2025? If so, which of your proposals were accepted? Otherwise, are there any proposals you would like us to keep in mind now?
Ms. Castravelli: Unfortunately, I haven’t been the executive director of the English Language Arts Network for very long either. That happened shortly before I arrived.
If I had any proposals to make right now, it would be to see where federal money is being invested in the Province of Quebec to promote Quebec culture — that’s perfect, I have no problem with that; Quebec culture is beautiful and I’m part of it, but I’d like for it to be official that we’re part of it. It’s more a matter of following the money trail, seeing how it fits in, and whether the anglophone community really has a place or if it’s being sidelined as something else that’s not very important.
Senator Gerba: Exactly, Ms. Castravelli, you mentioned transparency in your introduction. In your opinion, how could this concept of transparency be improved?
Ms. Castravelli: I believe that one of the current examples I’m referring to regarding the federal government with Canadian Heritage is that transparency mechanisms do exist; it’s just that the public is not very familiar with them. This is done at the federal level.
For example, if someone receives a grant, it’s published on a page, but it’s buried somewhere inside. You need to know where to look to find that information. It’s really about bringing the information to the surface, and that’s something that the regional section of Canadian Heritage in Montreal asked us to help them do. We’ll be glad to do that. If we could have something similar with the programs stemming from the Official Languages Act, it would be great to see who received funds, what would be —
[English]
— where was it attributed?
[Translation]
How much time has passed? And there are the amounts, if possible. I don’t know what can or cannot be said because of confidentiality, but —
[English]
In the realm of possibility, let’s just surface the information because it exists, but I don’t think people can access it very well.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I see here that 80% of federal funds dedicated to research are paid to 15 universities, of which only two are francophone universities. Are you okay with that?
Ms. Johnson: Of course, research is fundamental for the understanding of all linguistic communities, and I obviously want francophone communities outside Quebec to have the necessary resources to conduct research to understand the community’s needs and ways to improve the situation. I would support it, of course, but I wonder how much is given to the English-speaking community in terms of research. I know that English-speaking communities signed an agreement with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research two years ago, but before that, there were almost no resources going toward the English-speaking community.
Senator Gerba: Professor Larocque, of the University of Ottawa, suggested developing a registry to provide access to agreements on language clauses. Could this be a solution for improving transparency?
Ms. Johnson: Absolutely. As Ms. Castravelli mentioned, it’s difficult to find the information, so a registry would be great.
Senator Gerba: Okay.
[English]
The Chair: We’ve heard from many of the complexities and the variety of federal-provincial-territorial agreements, and obviously Quebec seems to be one that’s maybe even more complex than other provinces and territories.
Could you explain to us how the regulations could change some of that? I don’t know if you’re getting funding presently from the Quebec-Canada agreement or if you get it directly. It seems like you have both. You get directly from the feds and the Quebec-Canada Service agreement.
What changes in regulations could make a difference in your organizations?
Ms. Johnson: Well, I’m really worried that the pressure to remove the Quebec federal relationship is very strong. There is the strong position from the existing government right now in Quebec to have all of the federal funding come through Quebec and Quebec decide where the money goes.
The regulations can help address the issues that the Government of Quebec is concerned about, ensuring that, even if there is a federal community line of financing, it respects the Charter of the French language, and it incorporates the priorities of the province and things such as that, but remains a federal community relationship, a direct relationship.
The regulations can put a framework around that relationship that helps the Quebec government be more comfortable with those relationships. I don’t think it does right now. It’s a bit of a black void in terms of how you navigate the fact that we must protect the French language. It’s an important part of Quebec culture, but at the same time, we still want to support the vitality, growth and development of the English-speaking community at the same time. There needs to be some thought put into how the regulations can assist that conversation and give some guidance. Unfortunately, I don’t have the magic words at the moment.
The Chair: It is complex. It is the same with the francophone minority situation. A lot of times, you have federal-provincial agreements. You get your core funding from those agreements and then you get project funding directly in most cases, not in all cases. I was just curious to see if there was anything specific in the regulations that can make a difference for you.
Ms. Castravelli: I can tell you from culture’s perspective, if I may. There is something very specific in the sense — I don’t know how the agreement between the Official Languages Act and the Bill 1 proposal that has been tabled in Quebec would work. There is this concept in Bill 1 that a Quebecer is someone who contributes positively to the culture of Quebec. The problem is that that, too, lacks definition.
If we lack definition on our side and on their side, right now it’s okay. The government is just proposing a thing. But imagine a government 20 or 30 years in the future that says, “Anybody who doesn’t want to speak French is not contributing to the culture of Quebec and is not contributing positively.”
As I said, I think 41(2) should really have a (3) that also states English as being equal in the Quebec context. That would already be a big thing to protect any future potential misuse of what this thing would be, and then if we have things that measure what it looks like in a community.
I think it is a combination of regulations within the act and some sort of policy or procedure that comes outside that perhaps the Commissioner’s office or perhaps PCH would enact that would say what it looks like in this context for visual arts. Here’s what it looks like for film and whatever. In combination, that would be quite helpful in terms of preventing — because right now, for culture, we get our provincial money from the Secrétariat aux relations avec les Québécois d’expression anglaise.
It was by the grace of a previous government, but a future government could abolish that altogether and then what happens? It’s like what Jennifer said, all the money is controlled by the province, and what happens if they think that’s not in the interest of the culture? It’s problematic. That’s how it would help.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: Ms. Johnson, you said that McGill receives direct funding from the government. Can you explain that?
Ms. Johnson: Yes. Dialogue McGill is a program that has been running since 2006. It is a language training, retention and bursary program to support the capacity of health professionals to improve their French, for English-speaking students to study and stay in Quebec, and bursaries for students.
Senator Moncion: That could go away at any time, because it existed before. I think I understand the context. Thank you.
Senator Cormier: Ms. Castravelli, I want to understand what the proposal means when you’re talking about 41(2), because 41(2) says this:
The Government of Canada, recognizing and taking into account that French is in a minority situation in Canada and North America due to the predominant use of English, is committed to protecting and promoting the French language.
This article talks about language, and if I understood well, we’re saying that the issue with English-speaking communities in Quebec is not the language but the vitality of the community. This is at the central point in the Official Languages Act.
I’m trying to understand. You’re saying that we should add the same thing for the English community, but we’re talking about the issue around language.
Ms. Castravelli: I think I understand what you’re asking. Please clarify if I’m not answering your question.
The francophone community is surrounded by English in the rest of Canada by just the volume of people, but within Quebec, the anglophones are surrounded by francophones. That’s what I mean. It is very difficult to separate culture from language, as I think we’re seeing.
I think that defining it by language is the line that we have to take to be able to adhere to the act. It’s a place to start. Will it answer every single thing? I don’t know, but certainly the culture of being able to make a stage production in English or write a book in English or potentially get a job in English if I speak French, but maybe not as well as somebody who was born in French, and to have those sorts of things allowed to be my culture because that’s what we’re really talking about. We’re talking about a sort of survival mode.
Senator Cormier: We’re not speaking about the fragility of the English language.
Ms. Castravelli: But in Quebec there is fragility because people are leaving. People are more bilingual now than they ever have been, and it’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s the right to be able to protect your culture and your language within the greater context. In this case, the greater context within the borders of Quebec is French. It’s not English.
Senator Cormier: Are there a lot of organizations that agree with your proposal of adding that?
Ms. Castravelli: I have had a few conversations with, for example, TALQ. They have a very similar proposal, and they are the ones who actually proposed most of the legislation and explained it to us. They have lawyers on staff to do this sort of thing.
Yes, I would say probably. I haven’t done a very comprehensive survey, but, certainly, it is pervasive that many of the English-language communities do feel overwhelmed and as if they are not allowed to keep their own language and their own culture and still be able to make a living in Quebec. They do feel oppressed by the francophone majority that is within the province, because that is where we live physically.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being here this evening. It is getting late for us. It is our third panel, but it was still very interesting to understand the specificity of what’s happening in Quebec, especially. Thank you again for being here.
(The committee adjourned.)