THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, October 5, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to official languages generally, particularly the proposed regulations respecting the use of French in federally regulated private businesses; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Allister Surette (Chair ) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Before we begin, I would like to ask everyone here to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Microphones will be controlled by the console operator. Please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on.
My name is Allister Surette. I am a senator from Nova Scotia and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I will now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia. Welcome to our guests.
Senator Cormier: Good morning. Welcome to the Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada, or FCFA. I am René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Hébert: Good evening and welcome. I’m Martine Hébert from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Good evening. I’m Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
The Chair: I would like to welcome everyone with us today, as well as those listening to us online on sencanada.ca.
Pursuant to the general order of reference received from the Senate on September 25, 2025, we are studying today the proposed regulations on the use of French in federally regulated private businesses. To that end, this evening, we welcome Liane Roy, president of the Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada, or FCFA, who is joining us by video conference. Welcome and good evening. With us in the room, we have Hector Vera, Director of Policy.
Ms. Roy, should any technical challenges arise, please signal this to me or the clerk. If not, we will ask you to make a few opening remarks, after which we will move to a question and answer period. The floor is yours.
Liane Roy, President, Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting the FCFA to appear to comment on the proposed regulations on the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, commonly known as the UFPBA. I am joined by our Director of Policy, Hector Vera, who is with you. If the technology fails us, Mr. Vera will speak.
The draft regulations for the UFPBA have already been published in Part I of the Gazette. It is urgent to make the necessary amendments so that the version published in Part II will be as ambitious as the act itself. As you know, when the legislators added the UFPBA to the Official Languages Act in 2023, their intention was clear. They meant to involve the private sector in the national effort to slow the decline of French across the country, and to help advance the substantive equality between our two official languages, in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence.
Similar to the Official Languages Act, the purpose of the UFPBA is to support the vitality of communities. The preamble recognizes the diversity of provincial and territorial language regimes and encourages a differentiated approach to achieving the act’s objectives.
At this stage, the proposed regulations and the accompanying tools are inadequate. They will not allow for the effective implementation of a law that will have a direct impact on francophones’ ability to live and work in French. First, the designation of regions with a strong francophone presence is limited. It excludes regions with a critical mass of francophones as well as rural and remote regions, and it does not take into consideration the specificity of minority communities, even though the act provides for it.
We recognize that language obligations can have economic consequences for the businesses concerned. However, if we really want to promote French, fight assimilation and support the vitality of francophone communities in Canada, francophone demographic weight alone will not suffice as a criterion.
The impact assessment for UFPBA implementation, conducted by Canadian Heritage, shows that the regime, as set out today, will be financially cost-effective within one year of its coming into force in regions with a strong francophone presence. Canadian Heritage’s analysis also shows that regulations will not have much effect on habits outside Quebec and should not disrupt the operations of the companies concerned. These findings open the door to bolder action to include more regions and communities in the UFPBA regime. The FCFA proposes adopting a methodology that is in line with that of the department by using a more targeted census scale, that of the dissemination area. Combining that with the 20% threshold for potential demand for services in French will incorporate a larger number of regions with a strong francophone presence.
We also recommend designating all provincial and territorial capitals, harmonizing with designations made at the provincial level in Ontario and Manitoba, as well as using vitality criteria such as immigration hubs, historical communities and the presence of francophone institutions.
The FCFA’s other recommendations include, but are not limited to, requiring French-language services in emergencies in means of transportation, establishing a public registry of private businesses subject to the UFPBA and reviewing the regulations every five years to keep up with the country’s demographic changes. Implementing these recommendations will ensure that the regulations more accurately reflect the spirit of the act, ensuring that French fully enjoys the status of official language rather than language of accommodation in Canadian society.
Thank you, and we are ready to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Roy. We will now move on to the question and answer period. I would ask that you keep your questions and answers to a maximum of five minutes for the first round, and then we will move to a second round if need be.
Senator Cormier: Thank you, Ms. Roy and Mr. Vera, for being here. I carefully reread the brief you tabled in the House of Commons in May, in which you made eight recommendations, and you mentioned some of them. I would like you to talk about the purpose clause that you requested.
Can you hear me okay?
Ms. Roy: Yes, but I lost you. Perhaps I’ll let Mr. Vera answer while I sort it out.
Senator Cormier: Reading your recommendations and listening to your comments, we get the sense that the regulations do not respect the spirit of the act. Could you tell us more about the introductory provision related to the purpose that you suggest be incorporated at the beginning of the regulations? Can you clarify the motivations for such a provision?
Hector Vera, Director of Policy, Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada: The spirit of the act is to recognize that communities are diverse and varied. However, we don’t see that in the regulations as they appear. We are asking that this diversity be recognized so that the regulations can then be more specifically applied to the various realities of our communities.
Senator Cormier: Does that include other considerations, such as the remedial nature of the act? It seems to me that all these aspects that appear very prominently in the act guide the legislator in implementing the act.
You say that all this helps to articulate the diversity of communities. However, are there other factors to include in the provision, which I think is important?
Mr. Vera: I would say yes. The act and the regulations have a direct impact on Canadians. Recognizing that we must achieve substantive equality will lead to more effective regulations. It’s already in the act, and including this provision in the regulations will allow public officials and private companies to look at the act and enforce it. It would be great to include everything in the act in the purpose as a reminder.
Senator Cormier: You talk about expanding the number of regions identified as ones with a strong francophone presence. In your brief, you suggest a good example, the Toronto region, where there is a large francophone population.
What wording would you suggest? What arguments are you putting forward specifically for these regions to be included? We know that there are different criteria, and we could talk about that at length. Yes, there is the francophone presence, which does not always correspond to the famous 20% identified as a criterion.
Ms. Roy, I don’t know if you want to comment on that. It is important because it does have to do with the diversity of the regions.
Ms. Roy: Yes. In fact, we wanted to make sure we had a larger number of francophones. That is why we are proposing other designation criteria, such as the diffusion area.
The diffusion area is a smaller, more precise unit with a population of between 400 and 700. It’s a smaller scale than the census areas proposed by Canadian Heritage. We are adopting the dissemination area, because a census area has between 2,500 and 8,000 inhabitants.
We feel that having a smaller group makes it possible to more clearly highlight the places where francophones live. As they say, the minority must be treated with different criteria than the majority. That’s why the diffusion area allows for a more detailed geospatial analysis. Marketing companies use diffusion areas to better target consumers. That’s why we suggested this one.
If you apply the criterion of at least 20% potential demand for French-language services in a diffusion area, you get a much more accurate representation of the reality of francophone communities. You mentioned the criterion of the critical mass of francophones, such as in Toronto, which is a very good example. That’s also why we say we want to include all provincial and territorial capitals, because we have our institutions there and because there is a larger grouping of francophones.
It may be less blatant than in Toronto, but it is really valid in terms of designating the capitals of each province and territory because that is where, as I said, our governmental, economic, educational and community institutions are. That’s also where we find the workforce and attract newcomers. All these factors explain why we recommend diffusion areas.
As you know, francophones are scattered across many regions of the country. They are also dispersed across a number of neighbourhoods in big cities. As a result, it’s hard to have a more concentrated mass of francophones.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. I will expand on my remarks with the following question. I’d like to know if the government is open to these recommendations. Do you feel that it is?
Ms. Roy: I didn’t get any indication as to whether the government was in favour of the recommendations or not.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Hébert: Ms. Roy and Mr. Vera, thank you for your testimony. You know that Canada is facing an unusual economic situation. We’re going through a major crisis, we’re trying to attract investment and we’re also trying to promote interprovincial trade.
In terms of regulations, even if these are businesses under federal jurisdiction, there is still a question of perception. Regulations come with costs, and they also have an effect on the perception that companies will have when it comes to choosing to invest in Canada or not.
Regulation is one of the factors that companies will take into account in their investment choices. From that perspective, I think we all agree on the objective of expanding the use of French in Canada.
However, knowing where we are right now, how do we reconcile this situation with your proposal to broaden the scope of the act? We know that this could have a negative impact on Canada’s ability to attract investment. I am not saying that it will prevent Canada from attracting investment, but it is still an aspect to consider in that regard.
I would like to hear your position on that. How do we reconcile it?
Ms. Roy: First, I think that having areas where there are more francophones will give businesses a much more bilingual workforce that is ready to work for companies that want to come and invest in Canada. I think it is important to have a strong, bilingual workforce recognized in the provinces and territories. It will make them more attractive. As you know, a bilingual workforce is much more appealing than a unilingual workforce, especially when it comes to international companies.
Since the two languages are spoken on five continents, it is important for us to promote employees who speak both languages. Being open to diffusion areas will make our regions much more attractive from an economic standpoint. That was also kind of our intention.
Senator Hébert: Thank you.
Mr. Vera: In Part I of the Canada Gazette, a study conducted by Canadian Heritage assesses the costs and benefits. It’s a pretty comprehensive study. Canadian Heritage concludes that there are more benefits than costs and that it should not have a negative impact on investment projections.
Certain sectors of the economy are being targeted. It’s not all companies; it’s also the existing banking sector. In our view and according to the published study, investments should not be affected.
Senator Hébert: You’re right that the banking sector is targeted, but there’s also road transportation, communications and air transportation. In the study you mentioned, the compliance costs for implementation are estimated at around $200 million for businesses.
Ms. Roy, regarding the implementation of legislation, you spoke about the importance of having appropriate tools to help businesses comply with the law. At the start of your remarks, you mentioned inadequate tools. What tools do you think would be adequate, then, if the existing ones are not?
Ms. Roy: Thank you for the question. I think what I was describing as inadequate was what was meant to form the regulations in their entirety.
Senator Hébert: I’m sorry, I misunderstood you.
Ms. Roy: I’d like to come back to your last question.
To follow up on what Mr. Vera said, that same Canadian Heritage study states that businesses will be able to recover their costs within a year. That means that if there’s training and so on, those costs will be recovered.
Senator Hébert: That’s fine. Thank you.
Senator Moncion: Good evening, Ms. Roy. It’s been a long time.
Among the criteria that the FCFA submitted, there’s one about designating provincial and territorial capitals as regions with a strong francophone presence. Some have been completely ignored. I would like you to talk about including provincial and territorial capitals as regions with a strong francophone presence and explain to us what justifies that inclusion.
Ms. Roy: Thank you for the question.
We would like all provincial and territorial capitals to be included, because if only the regions with a strong francophone presence are kept, that will limit us. The absence of a critical mass in a neighbourhood or city is concerning and important for francophones, since they’re scattered across several neighbourhoods. That’s why we suggest taking into account all the provincial and territorial capitals, since that’s also where you find the francophone institutions, economic institutions and so on. Canada also seems to be attracting more and more immigrants who arrive and want to work in French and in both languages. For us, it’s important to include those capitals. An example from earlier is Toronto, which is one of the capitals. There’s a critical mass in Toronto. However, when its demographic weight is considered, the city wouldn’t be included. When it comes to 191,000 people in the metropolitan census area of Toronto, that represents a fairly critical mass of francophones outside Quebec. That’s why we’re trying to strongly suggest that all provincial and territorial capitals be taken into account.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Another extremely important factor to consider, in relation to capitals and as you just pointed out, concerns the distribution of the population. Services are often offered in the capital itself, whereas people will settle down in the suburbs for financial reasons. In fact, it’s in those suburbs that francophone communities will form with their schools and community centres. That will feed into the institutions of the broader region, even if francophones don’t live there, hence the importance of your calculations and recommendations. I would like you to tell us about that.
Ms. Roy: Indeed. As you know, society is also changing demographically. It’s clear that immigrant populations are moving to the capitals. That’s important because francophone immigration is one of the pillars of the Official Languages Act. If services aren’t available in French and people don’t get the opportunity to work in French, including in private businesses or businesses affected by the UFPBA, it raises the question of what all these efforts are for. That’s another good reason for including capitals.
Senator Moncion: I would like you to tell us a bit about the disparities that exist between the UFPBA and the French Language Services Act, which is also recognized in Quebec. Some things are recognized in the French Language Services Act and have an impact on the calculations set out in the UFPBA, unless I’m mistaken.
Ms. Roy: Mr. Vera, would you like to answer that question, please?
Mr. Vera: Yes. We haven’t looked into that, because it’s under Quebec’s jurisdiction. We understand that the UFPBA is similar to the option that Quebec has, and that businesses can choose which system to join. However, we haven’t seen any disparities between the two.
Senator Moncion: Okay.
When it comes to the service sector, including banking, transportation and aviation, it’s clear that there are differences depending on the regions and the companies. That’s where service disparities can be seen.
Mr. Vera: Are you simply talking about what happens within Quebec?
Senator Moncion: No, outside Quebec.
Mr. Vera: Okay. There are different criteria. For example, Quebec has a different threshold than areas outside Quebec. It’s clearly a political choice to make the whole thing less difficult outside Quebec.
Senator Moncion: In order for the services to be available, though?
Mr. Vera: In fact, the threshold is 100 employees at the national level. In a particular area, I believe the threshold is 50 employees or more. What do you want to know, though?
Senator Moncion: Perhaps it wasn’t you who recommended lowering that threshold outside Quebec to levels that are more realistic for our communities, so that they’re served in French if they need services in French.
Mr. Vera: Lowering the threshold is one of our recommendations, absolutely. However, in this case, the most important thing is to reduce the analysis area, use the 20% ratio, reduce it and move from the census area to the dissemination area, which is a defined area. Finally, if we have to determine which criterion is the most important, the dissemination area is more important than the threshold to establish the service.
Senator Gerba: I’m going to continue on the same topic, the threshold. In your brief, you recommend changing the threshold to 25 employees. How could we ensure that the obligations imposed on small businesses remain proportionate to their capacity? That’s my first question.
More broadly, how do we balance this expansion with language obligations and limit the burden? It’s still a regulatory burden on small businesses.
Mr. Vera: First, the legislator’s intention, as well as ours, is to achieve substantive equality. If it’s a burden for the country to protect French, I have to wonder.
Senator Gerba: I’m thinking of small businesses.
Mr. Vera: The businesses have to be under federal jurisdiction, so this doesn’t affect the small little businesses that don’t have stable contracts. We’re talking about certain sectors, including the banking, aviation and transportation sectors, which have slightly broader shoulders from a financial standpoint. We aren’t talking about a bakery or a coffee shop. We’re talking about businesses that have a certain economic weight and that must demonstrate a certain level of economic performance.
What we want, what we’re looking for, is precisely for these regulations to have a real impact. Because where we are now with the threshold, with the areas, that already exists. Not a lot will change. What we want is to raise the floor so that this act and these regulations can have an impact on the promotion of French and so that the private sector starts doing its part for substantive equality here in Canada.
Ms. Roy: I was going to add that Canadian Heritage’s impact study concludes that, as part of the regulatory development process and the consultations with small businesses — I think that’s where you were going — businesses with fewer than 100 employees and an annual gross revenue of less than $5 million that are located in regions with a strong francophone presence will not be subject to the requirements of the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, or UFPBA. That prevents subjecting small businesses to too significant a burden or compliance cost. That’s also in the study that Canadian Heritage had carried out.
Senator Gerba: Thank you for clarifying that.
In your brief, you also raised the issue of French-language services in means of transportation during emergencies. However, the draft regulations specify that means of transport are not considered workplaces and so are not subject to the UFPBA. In your opinion, what minimum obligations should be set out to ensure that emergency instructions are available in French?
Ms. Roy: I think those were secondary recommendations that we had made. For public safety, it’s indeed important to be able to demand services in French during emergencies. Now, I know it’s said that a truck driver’s vehicle, because it isn’t their place of residence — even though they drive it — isn’t their place of work, because the vehicle goes everywhere. In those cases, those drivers don’t have to interact with the public. For us, then, that isn’t an ideal example. The situations we’re worried about are those where a fairly large population would need access to these transportation services. That’s why it’s important to be able to demand services in emergencies: for public safety.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you to our guests for their comments. Personally, I haven’t followed the entire bill and the regulations. Do you feel that the new criteria you wanted the government to take into account, such as the dissemination area and the vitality criteria, have been welcomed by the government and that some of these criteria may be added to the regulations?
Ms. Roy: The importance of vitality criteria for us is directly in line with the act and the Official Languages Act. There’s a focus on these vitality criteria because they make it possible to achieve substantive equality. If the vitality of our regions is taken into account, thought is also given to our smaller communities. I look at you and think about the Chéticamp region. There are historically francophone regions that aren’t being taken into account here. In addition to capitals, it’s important to look at the vitality criteria of our regions.
Senator Aucoin: You didn’t understand my question. Do you feel that you have made progress with this or that the government might consider including these criteria? Do you have the government’s attention?
Ms. Roy: Yes. I mentioned the act because the government, as a legislator, passed that act. In my opinion, if the government wants to be logical and consistent, it should adopt vitality criteria.
Senator Aucoin: On the other hand, you may have answered my second question. Regarding places like Fort McMurray or Calgary, could the new criteria you’re talking about, which the legislator has already incorporated into the act, enable cities that are not capital cities, and indeed businesses that would set up there, to offer those services? What about Fort McMurray, where there’s a large clientele of workers who come to work on site without being residents? Would new businesses with a contract in defence or something else be required to provide services to this clientele of workers who are not residents? Could you tell us more about that?
Ms. Roy: I understand your question, but I’m not sure they would be covered by the UFPBA. If these were businesses that are subject, it seems to me that some of these regions, with the dissemination area, could make that available not only when it comes to the people who live there, but also when there’s a high concentration of tourists or people who come to work there.
Senator Aucoin: I was wondering if these new criteria could encompass those populations that are in transit.
Ms. Roy: I think so.
Mr. Vera: First, I may have a brief statement on dissemination areas and census areas. These are areas established by Statistics Canada. The information is the same, too, which means that it’s aggregated and added in the census areas, but it’s more scattered. With the criterion we’re asking for, there could be information on smaller areas, as you just said. By using the same 20% criterion that the government is requesting but simply reducing the analysis area, it’s possible to identify these elements.
We did some research into geospatial analysis, since that’s kind of what we’re doing now. When it comes to analyzing complexity, the smaller the analysis area, the more that complexity can be understood. In fact, by taking areas that are too large, we lose information on our communities. By reducing the areas, it will be possible to conduct the type of analyses you’re referring to. The same goes for cities. We don’t want services everywhere in Toronto. Narrowing the analysis area — and you can see it on the map in our brief — makes it possible to identify neighbourhoods by cross-referencing data on the dissemination area and the location of schools and other institutions from our organizations. That’s where we want the services to be established: It isn’t all over the big city. It’s really in areas with a certain vitality. That’s where it can be discovered, by doing this analysis, that there are areas with a strong francophone presence.
The Chair: Thank you. Before moving on to the second round, let’s talk a little more about the dissemination area and the methodology. I imagine you have calculated this for a province such as British Columbia as well, which is not currently affected by the UFPBA at all, if I understand correctly. Given the dissemination area, I dare say it will be affected.
My other question concerns the dissemination area. Why suggest this methodology instead of using the regions already designated as bilingual, which are listed in Part IV of the act? Is it to try to clear up some of the confusion between the two different types of methodology or regime?
Ms. Roy: We wanted to use the dissemination area because it comprises between 400 and 700 residents, whereas the census tract, as I mentioned earlier, comprises between 2,500 and 8,000 residents. If we use this, it gives us areas or pockets where there are the most francophones. As you know, some of our regions are smaller, but if we base our analysis on this, yes, it can be helpful in British Columbia. You’ll find the map in our submission; you’ll therefore be able to see where the dissemination area identified a French-speaking population, whereas the census tract did not. In addition to the Victoria region, which is the capital.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: I shall continue on from your last question, Mr. Chair. Part IV of the Official Languages Act deals with the federal government’s obligations regarding the provision of services in designated bilingual regions. Part V of the act sets out obligations for the federal government, which must allow its staff in these regions to work in the language of their choice. We now have a draft regulation that does not correspond to the bilingual regions identified in the act, if I understand correctly. This means that, if I am out and about in Toronto as a francophone citizen, I do not always know where I can be served in French or not, or at which business. It seems to me that this is a huge source of confusion. It seems to me that the government, in its lack of foresight, has failed to take into account the alignment of these two considerations.
In your opinion, shouldn’t the federal language regimes regarding the language of service and the language of work be harmonized so that, in these designated French-speaking areas, services are provided in both languages so that people can work in their own language and access services in their own language, whether they are seeking a service provided by the government or a service from a private company? What can you tell us about this? What are your thoughts? What have you said to the government on this point, which strikes me as a source of enormous confusion?
Ms. Roy: Yes, indeed. If it were possible to have a single language policy covering the whole of Canada, that would be good, because it would precisely serve to strengthen French throughout the country and ensure the long-term vitality of francophone minority communities. If that were possible, it would be the right thing to do.
However, realistically speaking, we understand that this is not a possibility everywhere. Although there are francophones in every region and constituency across the country, it may not be possible to have a single system or framework. There may be genuine risks that businesses within the same sector are not subject to the same obligations. For example, we spoke about transport earlier: This could happen in that context. The UFPBA can partly address this issue, but we really need to look at the full range of different language regimes across the board. That is why we were asking, at least for provincial regimes, that we focus on those. It is more difficult. We need to see the opportunities that arise from all this, and view language obligations not as a burden but as opportunities. It must be said that bilingualism offers competitive advantages; it should not always be viewed as a financial burden. Regardless of the schemes we end up with, we must try to fall back on —
Senator Cormier: I do not wish to interrupt you, but I feel the chair might do so.
In your submission, you also recommended that private companies under federal jurisdiction located in New Brunswick should be subject to the same criteria as those set out in the Quebec scheme, whether in terms of the employee threshold, certification requirements or accountability. Could you explain, for the benefit of everyone, why such alignment between New Brunswick and Quebec would be possible?
Ms. Roy: We believe there are advantages to using something that already exists, such as the Quebec scheme, and to having the same thresholds for the formation of francization committees. Accountability is particularly important to us. Therefore, if it were the same scheme as Quebec’s, this would enable us to have greater accountability and a better understanding of the state of the linguistic situation, as well as the certificates of generalized proficiency in French. We saw many advantages in aligning with the Quebec scheme.
Senator Cormier: What can you tell us about the effectiveness of these committees within companies in terms of accountability and the self-assessments they will carry out within private companies under federal jurisdiction? Because companies will be obliged to set up these committees.
Ms. Roy: We have very little information about the committees, but I will let Mr. Vera answer.
Mr. Vera: One of the points raised in the submission is the need to involve the community in the committees, so that the measures being taken by businesses are fully aligned with the community’s development. However, we do not have enough information to know whether these committees are functioning effectively or not. In the case of New Brunswick, we believe that a scheme such as this could be helpful, as the population is larger there too, and the private sector could play a greater role in ensuring accountability.
Senator Cormier: I hope we will ask them to submit a written submission to us, Mr. Chair, because their submission from May was very relevant. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I have taken note of that.
Senator Gerba: Generally speaking, we are seeing a decline in the use of French, both in and outside Quebec. In this context, what impact would the UFPBA have on the decline of French in Canada?
Ms. Roy: That’s a good question. I think the UFPBA could help. If, with our recommendations, we manage to increase the number of places where — as mentioned earlier in the case of dissemination areas. This will bring much greater vitality to local businesses, and it will also help us in terms of francophone immigration. There will be more work and more bilingual jobs in each of these regions, and this can contribute to their vitality and, by extension, help to stem the decline. If more people can live and work in French, this will certainly help to halt the decline in the various regions.
The only place in the country where there has been no decline, according to the latest census, was the Yukon. We can see that this is because people can work and live in French. There are newcomers who have settled there. This is probably due to the fact that they have access to bilingual positions, which is helping to foster a vibrant community there.
Senator Gerba: Thank you. You are also proposing a five-yearly review of the regulations, taking into account demographic changes in the country. In your view, which elements should be reviewed every five years, and how can we ensure that the regulations can evolve in line with the actual needs of communities?
Ms. Roy: I think we talk so much about demographics and demographic profiles; it is so closely linked to the implementation of this regulation. So, to properly monitor demographic trends in Canada, I think it’s important that we review the whole picture every five years. If we look at recent years, we’ve seen that Canada’s demographic profile is undergoing constant and rapid change. We will see the results of the 2026 census, which will certainly confirm this trend. We must ensure — because the regulations take into account many criteria based on demographic data, and given that our demographic profile and trends are changing rapidly — that the regulations are amended every five years in line with the censuses and demographic changes.
Senator Moncion: You put forward, in the conclusion of your submission, an idea that is nonetheless very interesting for businesses that are not subject to the act — because they do not meet the size, employee numbers or threshold requirements — but for those businesses that would like to contribute to the promotion of French, I think the idea is excellent. Even if they are not officially designated under the UFPBA criteria, these businesses could benefit from support and act as proactive role models. I found that really interesting. What you’re talking about is a voluntary designation. I’d like you to explain this to us a little further, because the idea is really interesting, I’d say — there’s an opportunity here for those who see the promotion of French or the French language as a threat rather than as an asset that should be promoted.
Ms. Roy: Yes. I think we were counting on a knock-on effect. If more businesses across the country become French-speaking or bilingual, this could have a knock-on effect. We saw, from the Canadian Heritage study, that the investments made by these companies or businesses would pay for themselves within a year. If we go by that, it might give others the opportunity to get involved too, because it provides a better service.
As we said earlier: The desire to become bilingual or to offer services in French should not always be seen as a burden. There is, after all, a competitive advantage to be gained from this. It meets a demand. That is what the Canadian Heritage study demonstrated. I would say that it is mainly thanks to the knock‑on effect that we could offer this opportunity to self‑declare and demonstrate one’s desire to be part of this movement.
Senator Moncion: Would they be subject to the same rules if they did so voluntarily? For example, regarding the committee that has to report, and so on. Would it be beneficial, in fact, to perhaps introduce certain incentives to encourage these companies to provide this sort of environment, so as to encourage them to maintain this voluntary designation?
Ms. Roy: I think so. What’s interesting about the committee is that we’d like the community to be able to participate in the francization committees, so it might be worth seeing if any businesses are willing to volunteer. This could yield very good results because there would be a link with the community they serve.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Hébert: I shall follow on from what my colleague has just said, because my question specifically concerned incentives as opposed to regulatory measures. When we want to encourage a certain behaviour, there are two possible options: either we introduce a regulation or a law, or we introduce incentives. We can also do a bit of both.
I’d like to hear your views on an alternative approach. There are certain areas where we’ve seen standards being put in place, self-regulated by the companies themselves, whether these are standards for healthy businesses, for example, or “employers of choice.” Do you think that, following on from what my colleague was saying — because if we want businesses to join a movement to impose obligations on themselves, it seems to me that this goes somewhat against the very nature of what businesses are seeking. On the other hand, if there were a system or standard along the lines of “bilingual employers of choice” or something similar, do you think this is a system that could help and enable small businesses that are keen to do so and have the necessary resources to be able to offer such opportunities? Do you think this is something the government could consider putting in place?
Ms. Roy: I think so. It’s a very good idea to have incentives. I think that by talking to the communities they will serve, there are certainly measures we could discuss and put in place. I know that certain aspects have been examined.
Mr. Vera, could you add to what I’ve said, please?
Mr. Vera: In fact, we did not propose an incentive measure in our brief, because the regulation as it stands will already apply to a community that will be paying for a service. However, if we need to adapt, if we need to amend the regulations — perhaps as Ms. Roy suggests — that would be worthwhile. If it is in the interest of community development, there will be an added benefit, but the community must be involved. This is an essential element for any incentive scheme to be developed.
Senator Hébert: The economist in me would like to ask you: Why not a tax credit for French promotion?
Ms. Roy: Good idea.
Senator Hébert: Quite right. Tax mechanisms and incentives have proven their worth in several areas. I see no reason why they could not be applied to the field of language as well.
On the subject of francization committees — this isn’t a question, but perhaps an observation, as we’ve been discussing francization committees. To my knowledge, the francization committees currently in place in businesses in Quebec are working very well. Obviously, there is always a balance to be struck between the desired efficiency and the accountability mechanisms that are imposed, but according to the information I have and what I have observed, they work very well.
Senator Aucoin: I was wondering, amongst the sectors covered by the regulations, are there any others that you consider more important, or, amongst those, any that would affect a larger majority of francophone communities, service areas or vitality criteria? Are there any that would be more important; would it be possible to place greater emphasis on them, or would that be necessary? I would like to hear your views on this.
Ms. Roy: I think the sectors are fairly well defined, because these are the businesses that meet the requirements of the UFPBA, so I don’t think we can really broaden them. It’s also difficult because we don’t have a complete list of the companies affected. We would also need to be able to have — we recommended this as well — a list of the companies that are subject to the UFPBA.
Senator Gerba: In your brief, you refer to the non-reversal principle in relation to businesses, explaining that, even in the event of a decline, the obligation must be maintained for two review periods. Could you tell us a little more about the non‑reversal principle and the benefits of having such a principle in place?
Ms. Roy: Thank you for the question. This brings us back to the reason why we want the regulations to be reviewed every five years. This is because the population of certain communities where francophones have historically lived could decline, and they would then no longer be considered regions requiring services. We therefore wanted to introduce a non-reversal provision for certain regions so that they remain, for a certain period, classified as regions requiring services. The same applies to certain historically francophone regions. We want to ensure that services are maintained in those regions which have previously had a larger population. We want to offer them this option, given the significant variations we have seen in demographic profiles over recent years.
Mr. Vera: If a population is aging or lacking vitality, if services are withdrawn, its decline will accelerate. We therefore want to give this community a chance, as there are indeed other ways to revitalize it. As soon as we start to see a decline, if we cut services, things will become more complicated. In the case of older people, for example, it will be harder for them to remain in these areas. With this principle of non-reversal, we must consider the demographic aspect, but also the vitality and importance of revitalization. By carrying out an assessment, we can identify the solutions to be developed as a community.
The Chair: Our meeting is drawing to a close. As Senator Cormier mentioned, the written submission you tabled in the House of Commons was excellent. I hope you will also table a brief with this committee, given that the last one was several months ago.
I might have one final question. Since the regulations were published in the Canada Gazette last July, have you had any discussions with Canadian Heritage regarding the regulations? Have you set out your priorities for amendments?
Ms. Roy: We have maintained the same priorities.
The Chair: Thank you. This brings us to the end of this discussion. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to thank you sincerely for being here this evening and for the answers you have provided. As I said, I hope we will receive a written brief.
Thank you also to those who have been listening. Our next meeting will take place on Monday, October 19, as next Monday is a public holiday. We will now suspend the sitting for a few minutes before resuming in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)