Official Languages Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 11 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f) and the motion adopted by the committee on October 23, 2025, we're meeting today to begin our study of the use of French in government communications and in federal institutions.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses for the first hour.

We're joined by Nicole Gagnon, conference interpreter and spokesperson for the International Association of Conference Interpreters - Canada Region, or AIIC‑Canada.

We're also joined by Luisa Véronis, research chair in immigration and Franco‑Ontarian communities, as an individual.

Lastly, we're also joined by Nikolay Slavkov, full professor, research chair in language policy, from the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute, or OLBI.

I would like to welcome all our witnesses.

Before moving on to the remarks, I would like to confirm an administrative item with the committee. The committee members discussed how we wanted to allocate time for the questions if, as chair, I need to shorten the time for a round of questions. At the last meeting, I had to shorten the second round of questions.

I know that the parties have been discussing the allocation of speaking time. Right now, for the second round of questions, we allocate five minutes for the Conservatives, five minutes for the Liberals, two and a half minutes for the Bloc Québécois, five minutes for the Conservatives and five minutes for the Liberals. That's the standard.

I gather that colleagues have made the following suggestion. If I need to shorten the time, as I did last time, instead of giving three minutes, three minutes, a minute and a half, three minutes and three minutes, we'll consolidate the speaking time for the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives would have six minutes, and they would speak first. The Bloc Québécois would have a minute and a half. The Liberals would have six minutes. The duration is the same, but we would combine the two speaking turns of the Conservatives and the Liberals. That's the proposal.

I would like to check whether you agree to proceed in this way today if I need to shorten the speaking time for the second round.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

For today, I agree. However, for all future meetings, we could discuss this matter in more detail.

For today, we certainly agree with the proposal to proceed in this way.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, I don't understand my colleague's comments. All the regular members are here. I don't understand why we would need to talk about this matter again, since we discussed it earlier. If he wants to, he can bring it up again. However, I don't think that it's necessary.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

We could revisit the matter and increase the Bloc Québécois' speaking time.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Good suggestion, but we agreed otherwise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

I gather that we're willing to try this today, if necessary. In the future, if you want to continue doing things this way or change the system, just let me know.

Mr. Dalton, you have the floor.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Could you repeat the number of minutes allocated?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Normally, in the second round, the Conservatives have five minutes, the Liberals have five minutes, the Bloc Québécois has two and a half minutes, the Conservatives have five minutes and the Liberals have five minutes.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

That's for the second and third rounds.

Right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

For the second round, there are five members. Our committee and the other committees agreed on this. The parties negotiated this. I think that this system is used in all the committees.

Sometimes, when there isn't enough time, I need to shorten the whole round. Last time, I cut the times of the five members proportionally. I gave three minutes to the Conservatives, three minutes to the Liberals, a minute and a half to the Bloc Québécois, three minutes to the Conservatives and three minutes to the Liberals.

The members wanted to consolidate the speaking time for the Liberals and Conservatives so that it wouldn't be cut to three minutes and three minutes. Instead, they wanted both parties to have six‑minute blocks.

If I must shorten this block of time, I propose six minutes for the Conservatives, a minute and a half for the Bloc Québécois and six minutes for the Liberals.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

The three parties agreed to cut the speaking times.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

I would like to welcome our witnesses once again.

You will each have five minutes to give your remarks.

Ms. Gagnon, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Nicole Gagnon, Conference Interpreter and Spokesperson, AIIC-Canada, International Association of Conference Interpreters - Canada Region]

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for your important work on this topic.

On behalf of AIIC‑Canada, we appreciate this opportunity to contribute to your study.

The Prime Minister's use of the French language is only the tip of the iceberg as a metric to measure the place of French in government communications and in federal institutions. Parliament functions in an officially bilingual legal and political context, a wonderfully Canadian feature in itself.

With Parliament occupying the pinnacle of our democracy, it must be able to function so that Canadians can follow its proceedings in the language of their choice with the help of the highest quality interpretation. That's the duty of Parliament to Canadians, and it's worth remembering.

The clear purpose of the Official Languages Act is to ensure respect for the official languages, their equality of status and equal use throughout the federal government, in particular in Parliament, in the administration of justice and in communications with the public.

Respect doesn't mean having a lower status of quality for one of the two official languages. Equality isn't just measured by quantity. Quality is just as important.

In our view, increasingly, the Government of Canada is paying lip service to the requirements of the act. This is having a negative effect on the bilingual character of the nation.

Let me give you a few examples. The Courts Administration Service, or CAS, is entrusted with providing effective judicial, registry and corporate services to Canada's four national courts. According to its 2025‑26 departmental plan, the CAS doesn't have sufficient financial resources to meet its obligations under the Official Languages Act.

The plan baldly states as follows:

Amendments to the Official Languages Act have come into force in June 2024, requiring CAS to release in both official languages simultaneously decisions of precedential value, in addition to cases that raise questions of law of general public interest or national importance. The impact on CAS' operations is very significant and resource intensive. CAS currently does not have the appropriate level of resources to meet these new legislative requirements.

This situation will render the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada unable to ensure the equality of status and equal rights and privileges when it comes to the use of Canada's two official languages in the administration of justice. This directly contradicts the most important purpose of the act.

Here's another example. To save money, Public Services and Procurement Canada has just released new rules for procuring interpretation services for Parliament and high‑level events. These rules undermine the quality of the services. Instead of maintaining the five quality‑related criteria set out in the current contract, the new rules will see work awarded to the accredited supplier with the lowest price. Other governments have long since abandoned any procurement regime based on the lowest price because it squeezes quality from the services being purchased.

The federal government's approach will undermine the ability of parliamentarians to use and be understood in the official language of their choice. The equality of the official languages in Parliament will suffer a serious blow.

Here's one last example, if I may. The translation bureau has cut interpretation services to all but a few federal departments and agencies. Caught short, these departments and agencies are issuing requests for proposals that use much the same low‑quality procurement rules as the rules adopted by Public Services and Procurement Canada for Parliament and high‑level events. As a result, the inequalities between the two official languages will become even more apparent across the federal government.

I would like to conclude by thanking you for listening and by extending my greetings to my colleagues in the interpretation booth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Veronis, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Luisa Veronis, Research Chair in Immigration and Franco-Ontarian Communities, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, committee members.

First of all, thank you for inviting me to testify at this very important meeting on the importance of maintaining French at the highest levels for francophone minority communities.

My testimony is based on my research on francophone communities and, in particular, on the work I've been doing on francophone immigration in minority settings for more than 15 years.

To begin with, it's important to note that, according to the Official Languages Act and the principles of bilingualism, the presence and use of French at the highest levels is essential, even primordial, especially for francophone minority communities. The very existence, recognition and legitimacy of francophone communities are closely linked, and they even depend on the federal government's commitment to official languages.

It is also crucial to ensure consistency among the various federal policies, particularly since the Official Languages Act was modernized in 2023, recognizing francophone immigration and pledging to establish a dedicated policy in 2024.

In the early 2000s, the federal government defined francophone immigration as a key strategy for maintaining and promoting the vitality of francophone communities. Since then, considerable effort and investments have gone into supporting francophone immigration. These include the creation of dedicated francophone immigration networks, annual Destination Canada forums, the welcoming francophone communities initiative and the deployment of a range of pre-departure and post-arrival services.

If the highest political and institutional authorities do not fully honour their commitment to official languages, this runs the risk not only of undermining the very idea of the existence of francophone communities, but also of compromising these significant advances in francophone immigration.

I'd now like to draw your attention to three main challenges.

The first challenge concerns meeting francophone immigration targets. I would remind you that, despite a 4% target set in 2003, francophone immigration has stagnated at around 2% for nearly 20 years, which has contributed to the demographic decline of francophone communities. It wasn't until 2022 that the target was finally met and then exceeded, thanks to concerted efforts.

It should also be noted that, in the wake of the new francophone immigration policy, the targets have been revised upward to 8.5% this year, 9% in 2026 and a projected 10% by 2028.

To maintain this promising trajectory and continue to attract francophone immigrants, it's crucial that we demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to the French language and the vitality of francophone communities. In other words, if we don't showcase the presence and vitality of French, how can we hope to attract francophone immigrants?

The second challenge concerns the importance of French across the immigration continuum. The use of French by elected officials and institutions at the highest level is essential to support francophone immigration and guarantee its success across the immigration continuum, at several key stages.

From recruitment on, we have to project the presence and vitality of French in order to attract francophone immigrants.

At intake, as soon as they arrive, we have to ensure access to services and the first positive interactions in French in order to establish a solid foundation for integration.

Throughout the settlement and integration process, successful settlement depends on access to francophone networks, resources, institutions and social spaces.

It takes local community engagement and full inclusion in the host society.

Finally, for retention, they must be motivated to stay and flourish fully in French in francophone communities.

In my research, I've often heard francophone immigrants say they don't know where the francophone communities are. They've heard about them, but they're wondering where they are. They don't see them and they can't find them.

This raises the crucial issue of the visibility, or rather the invisibility, of francophone communities. Their visibility and accessibility are essential to ensuring the welcoming, integration and engagement of francophone immigrants.

Let's imagine a scenario where, despite all the efforts made to attract, welcome and integrate francophone immigrants, they become discouraged after a few years because they haven't achieved the Canadian dream they were sold.

In that case, they run the risk of leaving the country, which renders all the investment by the federal government, the francophone communities or the immigrants themselves, useless.

That's why the use of French at the highest levels of government is essential for the immigration continuum in order to guarantee its success and ensure that immigrants do well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Ms. Veronis, your time is up. I would ask you to finish up your presentation. During the question period, you may have time to say more.

[Luisa Veronis]

Okay.

The third and final challenge I wanted to address concerns the risks and abuses to be avoided, particularly the risk that francophone immigration will be perceived as utilitarian. Immigrants are no fools. In my research, they've often told me that they felt weaponized.

In closing, I would add that, if we want to preserve the credibility and sustainability of the francophone immigration initiative, we have to ensure the presence and vitality of French in all public institutions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Slavkov, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Nikolay Slavkov, Full Professor, Research Chair in Language Policy, Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute]

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to testify.

The subject of this study is of great interest to me, both professionally and personally. I am a professor at the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute, or OLBI, at the University of Ottawa. I work more often in my third language, which is English. I also had the pleasure and privilege of starting to learn French at our institute. Therefore, I'm constantly learning Canada's official languages.

My testimony today reflects that personal perspective, as does my accent in English and French. Obviously, my testimony is based on research in the field of language learning and instruction. My remarks are also informed by some innovative practices and initiatives at our institute.

Now I will dive into a few more specific points.

Language learning is a complex and multi-faceted phenomenon. Human beings, regardless of whether they're high-ranking public servants, elected officials or ordinary people, may have different life trajectories, and their diverse human experiences shape their language repertoires, sometimes called plurilingual repertoires or dominant language constellations.

The field of second or additional language learning is well known and almost notorious, I would say, for the variability of outcomes in comparison to the field of first-language acquisition. That is, the outcomes of first-language learning are generally quite uniform, whereas the outcomes of second-language learning are highly variable. Some of these include age of exposure, quantity and quality of input or educational choices made early on in life. It is curious that adults sometimes do not even realize that their bilingualism—or, in some cases, multilingualism—is sometimes preconditioned by their parents' early strategic decisions—decisions about what languages to use at home and what languages of schooling parents may choose for their children.

Another important factor to keep in mind is emotions and, more specifically, language anxiety. As pointed out by Peter MacIntyre, one of Canada's world-renowned language learning psychologists, language anxiety is one of the most studied emotions in his research field. Since language anxiety is seen as a debilitating factor, we must approach language learners with understanding and even empathy. In fact, one often-cited model that draws on these ideas is called “empathics.” Such models are not perfect, but they show some promise in reducing language anxiety or language insecurity and ultimately increasing output or target language use.

I want to make it clear that my remarks are not intended to justify the reduced use of French at the highest levels of government. On the contrary, I believe that we need to have a good understanding of the contextual and individual factors so that we can give appropriate advice and push for the increased use of French.

At the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute, where I work, we have various innovative practices and initiatives that may be explored in government contexts.

In terms of knowledge, we teach courses on the role of positive psychology in second-language learning, and we have publications on transitioning from linguistic insecurity to linguistic security.

In terms of tools, we have a paper booklet called “Linguistic Risk-Taking Passport” and a phone app called Linguistic Risk. These tools are specifically designed to push learners out of their comfort zone and increase their second-language output. In the context of the Government of Canada, such knowledge and resources can be used to offer strategic advice and, perhaps, customized coaching in order to increase the use of the French language.

One quick final point is that it may be important to mention that the level of proficiency and the level of target-language use or output are two distinct variables. However, they are not always treated as separate in some media publications or other reports, so that will be an important point to consider.

I am probably running out of time, so I could discuss that later if you wish.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Slavkov.

We will now go to questions from members.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us. Their comments are fascinating.

Ms. Gagnon, in your presentation, you mentioned that the situation was the tip of the iceberg.

What do you mean?

[Nicole Gagnon]

What I mean by that is that the Prime Minister is the head of the government, and anyone who follows him will follow his example.

I'm not picking on him specifically, but if the Prime Minister or all the ministers and parliamentarians don't speak French, that's not going to encourage the country's francophones to speak French.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I can therefore infer that, if the Prime Minister doesn't use one of our country's two official languages or minimizes its use, that will have enormous consequences for the structures of the government institution under his authority.

Did I understand correctly?

[Nicole Gagnon]

Yes, there's a ripple effect.