THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, September 28, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to official languages generally and to examine and report on the strengthening of federal institutions’ arts, culture and heritage responsibilities in official language minority communities and in Canada; and, in camera, to consider a draft report.
Senator Allister Surette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon and welcome back. Before we begin, I would like to ask you to consult the cards placed on the tables in the committee room to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please keep your earpieces away from all microphones, which will be controlled by the console operator. Lastly, avoid touching your earpiece while the microphone is on.
My name is Allister Surette. I’m a senator from Nova Scotia and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I would now like to invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Henkel: Danièle Henkel from the Alma region of Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I would like to welcome the people joining us today in the room, as well as the people tuning in at sencanada.ca.
Pursuant to the general order of reference received from the Senate on September 25, 2025, today we’re studying draft regulations on the use of French in federally regulated private businesses. Before introducing our witness, I would like to ask our new member to introduce herself.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz, or Gigi, Osler from Manitoba.
The Chair: We’re joined today by Maryse Tremblay, the chairperson of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation. We’re ready to hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by a round of questions. You now have the floor.
Maryse Tremblay, Chairperson, Canada Industrial Relations Board: Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators, for the invitation to appear before this committee in respect of your study of the proposed regulations on the use of French within federally regulated private businesses.
The board is commonly referred to as the federal labour tribunal. It’s an independent quasi-judicial administrative tribunal. The board’s adjudicative mandate is to interpret and apply the Canada Labour Code, as well as the Status of the Artist Act and the Wage Earner Protection Program Act.
The Canada Labour Code comprises four distinct statutory regimes. These regimes are Part I, which governs labour relations; Part II, which deals with occupational health and safety; Part III, which concerns minimum labour standards; and Part IV, which deals with administrative monetary penalties.
The Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act will constitute its fifth legislative regime.
Bill C-13 enacted the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act. Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the act provide for certain rights for employees and certain obligations for employers of federally regulated private businesses that operate in Quebec.
Succinctly put, employees will have the right to work in French, whereas employers will have to take measures to foster the use of French in their workplaces located in Quebec and will be forbidden from treating employees adversely with regard to their rights. The application of the act will extend to regions with a strong francophone presence two years after its coming into force.
An employee, and, in some cases, a potential employee, will be able to file a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages if an employer has failed to comply with its obligations. The commissioner may, with the consent of the complainant, refer such a complaint to the board. The commissioner may do so when they determine that they will not be able to resolve the complaint within a time they consider to be reasonable and the board is better placed to deal with the complaint in light of its nature and complexity or the seriousness of the alleged failure to comply.
The board understands that the regulations currently being considered are intended to clarify the conditions of application of the act. These conditions include employee thresholds that trigger the linguistic obligations; the list of regions with a strong francophone presence outside Quebec; and requirements relating to communications with consumers, language of work and French-language promotion committees.
[English]
For all disputes brought before the board, we offer mediation services through our mediators to assist the parties in reaching a resolution. Where disputes cannot be resolved through mediation or negotiation, the board’s decision makers or administrative judges are responsible for adjudicating the disputes.
The board currently consists of me as chairperson, eight full‑time vice-chairpersons and one part-time vice-chairperson, as well as five full-time members and two part-time members. The members represent either employers or employees.
The panels hearing and deciding cases are composed of either a vice-chair or the chair, who sits with either two members or alone, depending on the types of cases. Representative members do not sit alone to decide matters.
In addition, the chairperson may appoint an external adjudicator to decide certain matters, including those arising under the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, to which the provisions of the regulations currently under review relate.
In matters arising under the new act, the chairperson may designate either a panel of board members or either a single member or a single adjudicator to deal with a complaint. There is no doubt that the proposed mandate will result in an increase in the number of complaints filed with the board and, consequently, an increase in its workload.
[Translation]
As an independent administrative tribunal exercising quasi‑judicial functions, the board must exercise its powers free from any external influence and cannot express opinions on issues that may arise in appeals, applications or complaints that are or may come before it. Accordingly, my remarks before the committee will be limited and will reflect both the reality of the board’s adjudicative role and the corresponding duty of neutrality. In particular, I’ll refrain from expressing opinions on substantive matters related to the regulations or the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, as these matters could become the subject of proceedings before the board.
Thank you once again for the invitation. I’ll be pleased to answer your questions, within the boundaries attached to the board’s quasi-judicial role. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your opening remarks. We’ll now move on to the round of questions. Please limit your questions to five minutes, if possible. We’re a relatively small group, so we should have enough time for questions and answers.
Senator Cormier: Welcome, Ms. Tremblay, and thank you for your remarks. I actually have a few questions, particularly regarding the collaboration between the Office of the Commissioner and the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
I would like to better understand the mechanisms for collaboration. With regard to these regulations, are these mechanisms clear enough for you and the Office of the Commissioner? Can you explain how you collaborate?
Ms. Tremblay: The collaboration required for this new legislation is actually still in its early stages. However, the plan is for the Office of the Commissioner and the board to work together, given the need to collaborate on all issues that may be the subject of complaints referred to the board. This means that the administrative level and the various partners, including both the Office of the Commissioner and the board, must develop communication mechanisms and hold regular meetings to ensure that the preparations for the legislation’s coming into force proceed smoothly.
The Office of the Commissioner has extensive experience in handling the complaints that it receives. It must decide which complaints to refer to the board, what the referral procedures will be and how to coordinate the administration of these two organizations. This is certainly a priority.
The board has established an internal committee to review the overall development of our rules of procedure, our communication tools, the changes that need to be made to our website and the amendments to our regulations to accommodate the handling of new complaints.
We have extensive experience in handling all types of labour and employment relations complaints. This will be integrated into the complaints that we already handle. An assessment of the additional resources needed to handle these complaints has already been carried out.
To answer your question, I expect these two organizations to cooperate to the fullest extent.
Senator Cormier: I gather that complaints are first filed with the Office of the Commissioner?
Ms. Tremblay: Exactly.
Senator Cormier: Then the Office of the Commissioner decides which complaints should be referred to you. You spoke about the seriousness or complexity of the complaints. To give us a better understanding, could you provide some examples of what those complaints might be? What types of complaints might be sent to you?
Ms. Tremblay: The legislation states that a complaint may be referred to the board with the complainant’s consent. This is set forth in section 21 of the legislation. The commissioner must then carry out an assessment. If the commissioner is of the opinion that they will not be able to resolve the complaint within what they consider to be a reasonable period and that the board is better placed to deal with the complaint, in light of the nature and complexity of the complaint or the seriousness of the alleged failure to comply, then the complaint will be referred to us. How will the Office of the Commissioner exercise this authority? I’m not in a position to answer that. That question should be directed to the Office of the Commissioner. However, that’s currently what the legislation says.
Senator Cormier: After reviewing the documents and hearing from the witnesses, a challenge remains regarding how to align the regulations’ objectives with the other instruments available under the Official Languages Act and this act. We know quite well that the act designates certain regions as bilingual. The model applicable to federally regulated private businesses isn’t based on the model for regions designated as bilingual. Is this an issue? Can you comment on this? Does this cause confusion for workers in regions with a strong francophone presence? If you receive a complaint, how will you reconcile these two realities?
Ms. Tremblay: Since the complaint will first be handled by the Office of the Commissioner, I believe that it must first determine whether the complaint falls within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, since the legislation will have been in force for two years, the Office of the Commissioner will also assess whether the complaint comes from one of the regions designated as having a strong francophone presence. Once the matter reaches the board, I trust that it will already have been determined that the complaint falls within the proper jurisdiction and that it’s governed by the legislation.
I would like to provide some examples from other situations. We receive complaints from Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, regarding unfair dismissals. This is a slightly different system. Even though the complaints are referred by ESDC, we must sometimes determine whether the complaint falls within the board’s jurisdiction. ESDC doesn’t make that determination. An initial screening is carried out. However, when the matter requires a more quasi-judicial approach or when ambiguity arises, the case is referred to us. We must then rule on the issue of jurisdiction.
So, under this legislation, this may happen. However, things may be a bit clearer. We know whether the matter involves this type of region. I dare say that it’s either black or white. In that case, in principle, complaints filed with the board should fall within our jurisdiction. We won’t need to repeat this assessment if it has already been done in the first stage.
Senator Henkel: Thank you for joining us, Ms. Tremblay. Thank you also for your upcoming responses, which I hope will be enlightening.
Section 11 of the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act prohibits reprisals against an employee who asserts their language rights. If an employee is threatened with dismissal or faces another form of reprisal while their complaint remains before the commissioner, what mechanism can protect the employee even prior to your organization initiating proceedings?
Ms. Tremblay: I’m a little hesitant to answer that question. However, I’ll frame it in a different context. If a person claims that they have been the subject of a second form of reprisal — assuming their complaint falls within the time frame, because each regime has deadlines for filing complaints — then the employee or the person could file a second complaint. I’m not saying that this is necessarily the answer, but it is something to explore if we’re talking about the ongoing conduct of the employer or the federally regulated business. There is the whole concept of continuity; the question is whether this can be incorporated into the same complaint or if it constitutes a separate act. It could be a second complaint. I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself, because this is a somewhat hypothetical situation, but that is what needs to be examined.
Senator Henkel: However, it’s possible that someone could be dismissed for this reason. It simply needs to be proven.
Ms. Tremblay: To draw an analogy, in labour relations cases, it can happen that an employee is genuinely subject to reprisals. Let’s take the example of an employee who has received a work suspension — whether for three, four or five days — because of the same conduct or the same rights that the employee is trying to exercise. If the employer goes so far as to terminate the employee, which is a separate act, there may be two complaints: one for the suspension and one for the termination.
Senator Henkel: Perfect. Thank you.
The impact assessment projects that your board will receive between 29 and 36 complaints a year starting in the third year. Is this consistent with your own operational planning? And do you have the necessary resources to handle these additional cases within a reasonable time frame?
Ms. Tremblay: That’s the goal. The number of complaints has indeed been estimated at between 29 and 36 starting in the third year. This is an estimate. It’s difficult to know for sure when it comes to new legislation. Sometimes there are surprises, either fewer or more. However, this is the best estimate of the number of complaints related to the language of work in the public sector.
Next, it’s our hope to have the necessary resources based on the costs that were estimated in the regulations.
Senator Henkel: Let me provide some context: This is a question that may be a little longer, so let me know if anything comes up, because sometimes we try to explain things in French, but it can get a bit cumbersome.
When it comes to remote work, let’s take the example of a large federal government agency that provides customer service across Canada. Let’s take the example of two employees who work entirely remotely, who serve the same clients, who perform exactly the same duties and who work for the same organization. However, one may be assigned to a workplace in Quebec in a region with a strong francophone presence, and the other is assigned to a location elsewhere in Canada.
Does this mean, then, that these two employees doing exactly the same work could have different language rights at work?
Ms. Tremblay: I will refrain from answering that question because it is a scenario that could be presented to the board and that would ask that the legislation be interpreted based on the specific circumstances of the case. So we have to maintain our independence and not express an opinion on the application of the legislation.
Senator Henkel: Oh, rats!
Ms. Tremblay: Yes, I’m sorry.
Senator Gerba: I think my question is along the same lines. Maybe I won’t get any more of an answer, but I’ll ask it anyway.
So the regulations would allow certain federal enterprises in Quebec to choose between the federal regime under the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, or UFPBA, and the Quebec regime under the Charter of the French Language. Similar enterprises belonging to the same company operating in multiple provinces could, in fact, be subject to different rules. From your perspective, could this regulation have implications for how complaints are handled and investigations are conducted?
Ms. Tremblay: In fact, for federally regulated businesses in Quebec that choose to be subject to the Charter of the French Language for the complaints mechanism, that will come under the administration of complaints under the Quebec regime, so that’s not something we’ll be dealing with. That’s my answer to your question. As for the differences in the system between what is in Quebec’s Charter of the French Language and what is in the UFPBA, a very detailed comparative analysis would have to be done between the two. I understand that the intention was to align it as much as possible so that there would be less shopping between the two regimes, but if there are still subtle differences, that’s not something that will change the board’s decisions because it has to make decisions based on the legislation before it, and not based on a few differences that might be contained in the Charter of the French Language in Quebec.
Senator Gerba: I understand. I have a practical question: Do you have enough resources to apply this new language regime for federally regulated private businesses?
Ms. Tremblay: This was estimated and projected in the regulatory review document, and costs were estimated at $1.08 million a year for the first two years, then $2.19 million a year on an ongoing basis starting in 2029. So if the funding does follow and the estimate of the number of complaints is accurate, it should work. We’re also going to balance this with the resources already available to the board. At the policy level, the legislation also provides for an amendment to the Canada Labour Code to potentially appoint members with specific expertise in language rights or related rights. This was in the legislation — not the regulations — that aimed to amend subsection 9(2) of the Canada Labour Code; it also provided for an additional provision establishing a category of members who would essentially be full-time or part-time. This category differs from the current categories, which allowed for the performance of duties conferred on us under the Use of French in Federally Regulated Businesses Act.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
The Chair: If I understand correctly, the official languages file is new to your board. You haven’t worked with Canadian Heritage before?
Ms. Tremblay: It will be new.
The Chair: Were you consulted by the department? Did you subsequently have discussions with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages?
Ms. Tremblay: It’s a little more complicated, in the sense that it’s important to understand that the Canada Industrial Relations Board receives administrative support from the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, or ATSSC, which provides all administrative support to the board, including registry officers, industrial relations officers, legal services, communications, and so on. The board itself, as an institution, is made up solely of decision-makers. All administrative support falls under the purview of the ATSSC. Consultations therefore take place with the board, but also with the ATSSC, regarding the administrative services that support the board.
The Chair: Okay. Were you sufficiently consulted during the process?
Ms. Tremblay: Yes.
The Chair: Afterwards, did you take your own steps with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to —
Ms. Tremblay: In terms of implementation, things are under way, because it is expected to happen in 2027. Obviously, we don’t have the date, but we’re all in preparation mode, which also includes developing communication tools, procedural guidelines and opportunities for dialogue, through the partnerships we’ll be establishing with the Office of the Commissioner and Canadian Heritage.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: You mentioned that subsection 9(2) of the Canada Labour Code would be amended to ensure that you have the language skills. Since language issues have been complex and numerous for many years, are you sure that you will have the financial resources to deal with these complaints in regions with a strong francophone presence? Do you have any concerns? If so, what would they be?
Ms. Tremblay: I have no concerns for the following reasons. Expertise in language law is one thing, and I’ll get to that. An important aspect to consider when dealing with complaints like these is the issue of complaints related to reprisals, which is referred to as adverse treatment. The board deals with these types of complaints on a daily basis. Here are some examples: union rights, health rights under Part I of the Canada Labour Code, health and safety under Part II, or minimum labour standards under Part III of the code.
These are all pieces of legislation that set out exactly the same type of provisions under which employees can file complaints on the grounds that they attempted to exercise or did exercise their rights, whether in the area of health and safety or union rights, and that an employer took action against them because of the exercise of those rights.
So, regarding the development of case law for this type of complaint, which meets a series of criteria that the board has established for handling such complaints, whether it involves the nature of the issue or the rights that the employee is seeking to assert, be it union rights, health and safety issues or the right to take parental leave, for example, under minimum labour standards, the complaint mechanism is the same.
So that covers the complaint mechanism, but when it comes to language rights, there are a lot of decision-makers from Quebec. Let me give you an example from my own experience. I represented employers and federal businesses for 28 years in the private sector, and throughout those years I also advised them, whether at the federal or provincial level, on their rights and obligations under the Charter of the French Language. This expertise also applies to the administration of the UFPBA. I have other decision-makers from Quebec who have significant experience with the Charter of the French Language.
That said, supplementing this with what is provided for in the legislation, that is, potentially having members with this specific expertise to collaborate with colleagues, would obviously be desirable.
Senator Cormier: You’re talking about Quebec, and I understand that reality, but obviously, regions with a strong francophone presence — francophones in minority regions face different realities. Is there a requirement that the new members you would work with or involve must also be from those francophone regions? Because the reality is — I understand that the mechanisms are the same, but, as you know, the reality is extremely different in regions with a strong francophone presence. Is there a guarantee that there will be members from those regions?
Ms. Tremblay: In fact, it’s up to the government, to the Privy Council, to appoint the decision-makers to the board. These are Privy Council appointments. It’s not something within my purview. It’s up to them, of course, to address that question regarding their intentions to that end.
Senator Cormier: What indicators will show whether this measure is actually changing employers’ behaviour and improving the recruitment and retention of francophone workers? We know that businesses are required to establish a committee to promote the French language, but from your perspective on the board, what will give you the sense that it’s working, that it’s effective?
Ms. Tremblay: All these measures that must be taken by businesses with more than 100 employees — in Quebec, it has been called the francization committee, the French-language promotion committee in the context of this legislation — will not fall under the board’s jurisdiction at all. The Department of Canadian Heritage will be responsible for francization committees and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We will only receive complaints filed by employees that the Office of the Commissioner forwards to us.
In my experience, having done this for a long time in Quebec, these are more individual complaints about the individual’s language of work or having been passed over for a promotion because of the language of work. It’s more this type of complaint, in my experience. I doubt an employee would complain to the promotion committee, but it’s possible.
Senator Cormier: Can several employees file a complaint together? Can a collective complaint be filed?
Ms. Tremblay: That’s a good question. I will refrain from answering, but I will say that in the Canada Labour Code, in Part I on labour relations, we often see this: a group of employees — that is, several employees — who authorize a single employee to act on their behalf or, of course, they may be represented by a union. In this case, would there be an impediment or not? I don’t want to take a position on whether or not this is possible. In our regime, in the Canada Labour Code, this is something we see frequently.
Senator Cormier: In light of the testimony, I would say that a multitude of organizations are involved, and I think the answers you’re giving us, which are the answers you’re able to give us — and I understand that very well — make it difficult to understand how this will be implemented and how accountability will be ensured.
Senator Henkel: I’m going to talk to you about the limits of exemptions. Some international standards may require the use of English for technical activities. This doesn’t mean that performance evaluations or discussions with human resources must also be conducted in English.
Do these regulations delineate these exemptions clearly enough so that employers and employees know what obligations will remain in such a circumstance?
Ms. Tremblay: It really is a substantive question regarding the intent behind the regulations and what the exemption would or would not cover. That’s not something I can comment on. I’m sorry.
Senator Henkel: I would like us to look at the process from an employee’s perspective rather than from that of the institutions.
In the case of someone who has spent several months before the Office of the Commissioner prior to their case being referred to the board, at that point, would the case come to you with the file already assembled, or would that person, in practice, have to redo much of the work, in other words, resubmit documents, explain the details and facts, and answer new questions? Those are nonetheless lengthy and complex procedural requirements in terms of, once again, I’ll say it, what they might entail for the employee.
Are you working with the Office of the Commissioner office on a veritable single file system that could accompany the complainant from one institution to another to make the process easier?
Ms. Tremblay: Actually, when a complaint is referred to us, the Office of the Commissioner will provide us with the relevant parts of the case, so we will already have an assembled file.
From there, of course, we initiate the quasi-judicial process, in which the parties have the right to be heard, whether in writing — because we have the authority to make decisions based on the record — or at a hearing. So, depending on the case, there may or may not be a hearing.
When there is no hearing, we ask the parties to make written submissions in addition to what is already on file. It’s somewhat similar to the wrongful dismissal complaints we receive, for example, that have been sent to us through ESDC. We receive certain information and go from there. We then build a complete record.
As a tribunal, we are, of course, subject to the rules of natural justice. We therefore consider the submissions of both parties, whether made in writing or at a hearing. We cannot simply take what the Office of the Commissioner sends us and make a decision solely based on that. We really do need to obtain additional submissions from both sides.
Senator Henkel: Earlier, you said that you have a great deal of experience managing complex cases involving labour law and other types of law, naturally.
We’re talking about the French language specifically, but do you know approximately how long it can take to resolve a case? Because this could apply to language or to something else. It goes before the commissioner and then it has to come to you. Again, I’m thinking of the employee and the time they have to spend away from work or under stress at work. There are a great many human considerations involved.
Ms. Tremblay: Absolutely. We have statistics, if you’re interested. I can certainly provide them to the committee. We have statistics on the processing of our cases, but only from the moment we receive them.
Senator Henkel: Okay.
Ms. Tremblay: We don’t keep statistics on what happened before that. However, we receive wrongful dismissal complaints fairly frequently, for example, on which the ESDC, or “Labour Canada,” whatever we call it, has spent a considerable amount of time, even several months, before reaching us.
I’m very sensitive to what you are saying, Senator Henkel, because we have employees who have sometimes waited a year —
Senator Henkel: Of course. Yes.
Ms. Tremblay: — before landing on the board’s doorstep, so we have people who are already frustrated —
Senator Henkel: Of course. Yes.
Ms. Tremblay: — before we have even begun engaging with them in a process that involves . . . . soliciting submissions and so forth. It really is not ideal.
You may already be aware of this, but we have significant backlogs, as do many administrative tribunals in Canada, unfortunately. Bill C-39 provides for additional resources to be allocated to the board, which are welcome. So we will be moving quickly to secure those resources and recruit staff to help us address these backlogs. However, everything that happens before those cases reach the board is beyond our purview.
Therefore, to answer your question, I don’t know how long the Office of the Commissioner will take, but with the resources available to us, we will continue to do our best to process cases as quickly as possible.
Our case processing times are not where I’d like them to be. Obviously, I’m referring to the cases we currently have. If you’re interested, I can provide the committee with statistics on the average number of days required to process a case, as well as the median. The median is more relevant. If I send you the figures and you wish to review them, the median number of processing days is more meaningful because the average will obviously be skewed upward by extremely complex cases, which have a significant impact on it. So, if you’re interested, pay close attention to the median. It provides a more accurate picture.
The Chair: We are definitely interested. However, are those figures applicable? Are the cases you currently handle comparable to official languages cases in terms of their complexity and the processing time required?
I have another question as well. We’ve already discussed the potential number of complaints. If you are able to do so, have you calculated the additional cost to your organization, to the board?
Ms. Tremblay: Yes. In fact, that information is in the regulatory review. For the first two years, the estimated cost is $1.08 million, and then $2.19 million per year beginning in year three.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Gerba: Within the context of your current mandate, is there a need to better define the role of the industrial relations board itself in the regulations?
Ms. Tremblay: I’m not sure I fully understand your question.
Senator Gerba: Do you believe that your mandate is clearly defined in these regulations?
Ms. Tremblay: Yes. In the act, actually.
Senator Gerba: In the act, yes.
Ms. Tremblay: Yes, yes, absolutely.
Senator Gerba: All right. You mentioned Bill C-39. Could you tell us more about its implications for your organization?
Ms. Tremblay: I don’t want to get too far into Bill C-39, since it’s not the subject of the committee’s current study. What I was referring to, quite simply, was the press release announcing Bill C-39. It announced additional resources for the board —
Senator Gerba: Okay.
Ms. Tremblay: — to help it address its case backlog. That was part of the announcement of Bill C-39. That’s what I was referring to.
Senator Gerba: All right. In terms of this act, what positive outcomes can be expected?
Ms. Tremblay: You mean under the use of French act.
Senator Gerba: Yes, the UFPBA.
Ms. Tremblay: It’s not really for me to comment on that. It’s more a question of legislative intent and what is hoped to be achieved. What is set out in the regulatory review document seems quite fair to me. Beyond that, obviously, it’s not for me to comment —
Senator Gerba: Actually, perhaps I didn’t phrase my question properly. We’re in a context in which French is declining, both in Quebec and outside Quebec. Is there anything positive that can come out of this legislation?
Ms. Tremblay: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Senator Gerba: Will it make a difference?
Ms. Tremblay: Let’s hope so.
Senator Gerba: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Cormier: You clarified things for me when you spoke about the backlog you already have. You said you were very confident that you would be able to deal appropriately, and within a reasonable time frame, with the complaints arising from these regulations and the legislation. Since you’re engaged in a process, my question may be premature in terms of what you’re going to put in place, but I do have a concern. I respect the work of your board, but I have a concern. There is a substantial backlog. It’s enormous. The government intends to provide assistance specifically to minimize or reduce that backlog, but you will now have an additional responsibility and additional complaints, and we’re talking about an increase in complaints. How can you reassure us that the mechanisms you put in place will enable you to deal with these complaints appropriately and within a reasonable time frame?
Ms. Tremblay: I can tell you that we can only work with the resources we have. So, to the extent that we have sufficient resources to help us deal with the backlog, obviously, those resources will be more than welcome. They have to keep pace with this additional mandate. There’s no doubt about it.
Senator Cormier: We have a government that seems intent on moving quickly when it comes to complaints related to the legislation and all of that, so we can hope that they will provide you with the appropriate resources to do your work.
Ms. Tremblay: I certainly hope so.
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Tremblay: Yes.
Senator Cormier: My last question concerns transparency. I know this is probably a sensitive subject. Complaints are filed with you after going through the Office of the Commissioner. Ultimately, a decision is made. Is that information public when a decision is rendered in a case?
Ms. Tremblay: Absolutely.
Senator Cormier: Absolutely? In your view, are those decisions worded clearly enough to provide useful guidance for implementation going forward?
Ms. Tremblay: Yes. In fact, all our decisions are posted on our website, as well as on CanLII and in other legal databases. Yes, the objective is always for our jurisprudence to be useful to the parties, so that they can learn from our interpretation of the legislation and, obviously, avoid the errors or problems that have been brought before the board.
Many cases turn on their individual circumstances. Depending on the circumstances of each case, there are therefore some aspects that are less applicable or transferable. However, our decisions contain general guidance that’s genuinely useful, regardless of the legislation we administer. In fact, we refer to those decisions, and the parties routinely do as well. They cite them to us when appearing before us, either asking us to enforce them or to distinguish between them. So yes, they are entirely public.
Senator Cormier: To conclude, I asked you about the expertise within your board when it comes to knowledge of regions with a strong francophone presence in minority settings, but does your board have members who come from official language minority communities, particularly francophone communities? I understand that you are a Quebec specialist, but since you have spoken about this at length, it seems to me that it’s legitimate to ask whether, within your board, you have —
Ms. Tremblay: As I was saying, you have to think of the board as being divided, if you will —
Senator Cormier: Yes, I understand.
Ms. Tremblay: There is the board, the decision makers, and SCDATA. I couldn’t answer for them; you’d have to ask them. However, in terms of decision makers, we currently have a vice‑chairperson who is a francophone from Ontario. I’m trying to go from memory here without getting too much wrong. We obviously have several people from Quebec. We have a part-time vice-chairperson, Lynne Poirier, who is from Atlantic Canada and who, of course, also has that personal experience. However, I’m trying to think of other francophone regions elsewhere that have been identified . . . . I would have to give that some more thought. My answer is not necessarily exhaustive because I’m trying to bring everyone to mind as I speak.
Senator Cormier: I understand. In any event, it’s desirable. We can certainly hope for that.
Ms. Tremblay: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much.
The Chair: You are much more involved on the operational side, and I understood your answer regarding the consultation. Do you know whether you, your board or your colleagues intend to submit comments on the regulations published in Part 1 of the Gazette? In other words, is there anything in the regulations that you had hoped, or still hope, would be changed before they become final?
Ms. Tremblay: No, we haven’t submitted any comments to that effect.
The Chair: Is there anything that could be included in the regulations that would make your job easier, such as a public list of the businesses that are subject to them?
Ms. Tremblay: My understanding is that the department will, of course, compile such a list. It’s more useful to the Office of the Commissioner than to us because, in principle, once a complaint reaches the board, it should be a complaint over which we have jurisdiction. So nothing comes to mind at the moment.
I would ask that, if you could give us 24 hours, we could send you anything that we might have. Otherwise, no comments have been brought to my attention to be conveyed to the committee.
The Chair: Yes, by all means. You may submit a brief, letters or comments. We are here to improve the regulations, so we’d be pleased to receive anything that might help us improve them.
Ms. Tremblay: Perfect.
The Chair: If there are no further questions from my colleagues, that concludes this discussion. Thank you very much for being with us this afternoon.
Colleagues, we will now continue in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Colleagues, we are now back in public session.
I’d like to move that the budget request in the amount of $76,669 for the study on the language obligations of federal institutions with respect to arts, culture and heritage be adopted and submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
Does it please the committee to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It’s approved. You’ve seen the communications plan. Do you agree to and approve the communications plan as presented?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Agreed. That brings us to the end of our discussion. Thank you for being here this afternoon.
(The committee adjourned.)