Official Languages Committee on Feb. 24th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Welcome to meeting number 22 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f) and the order of reference of Tuesday, December 9, 2025, we're resuming consideration of the official languages regulations.

I'd now like to welcome our special guests. From “Talking. Advocating. Living in Quebec.” we have Sylvia Martin-Laforge, who's the director general, and Marion Sandilands, who's a lawyer.

You'll have five minutes between you for your opening statement, and then we'll proceed to a period of questions with members of Parliament.

Ms. Martin-Laforge, it's over to you for five minutes.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge, Director General, Talking. Advocating. Living in Quebec.]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today as part of your review of the proposed regulations related to part VII of the Official Languages Act.

You've introduced me, Sylvia Martin-Laforge, as the director of TALQ. It's an organization representing the English-speaking community in matters of public policy and governance. Our focus is on legislation, federal funding frameworks and intergovernmental agreements that shape the vitality and sustainability of our community. Joining me today is our counsel, Marion Sandilands.

Before turning to the substance of our remarks, I would like to acknowledge the extensive and good-faith efforts undertaken by the Treasury Board Secretariat to consult TALQ and other stakeholders from the English-speaking community during the drafting of these regulations. The engagement has been meaningful, and we recognize the effort.

TALQ welcomes the draft regulations. We didn't welcome the act, but we're here to say that we welcome these draft regulations. They introduce long-needed structure and procedural discipline to part VII, making it more difficult for federal institutions to overlook their obligations. By requiring a part VII analysis at key decision points—when programs are created, renewed, modified, ended or transferred—the regulations improve visibility and accountability for Parliament and for the Commissioner of Official Languages.

However, our core message today is this. The regulations operationalize process, not outcomes. In doing so, they expose structural gaps within part VII of the act, gaps that Parliament should address during the statutory review.

The regulations require institutions to analyze impacts, identify affected communities, consult stakeholders and document their reasoning. What they do not require is a demonstrable result. A department may fully comply with every procedural requirement and yet leave conditions on the ground unchanged. That is not a flaw in the regulations. It reflects a structural limitation of the act. The regulations can discipline decision-making, but they cannot compel measurable improvements in community vitality.

This issue is particularly significant in Quebec, because Quebec is unique under part VII. It is the only province where the federal government must simultaneously protect and promote French as a minority language in Canada, while enhancing the vitality of the English-speaking community of Quebec. These obligations coexist, but they do not always align seamlessly.

The modernized act also adds Quebec's Charter of the French Language into federal statutes, despite concerns raised by English-speaking Quebecker stakeholders. The draft regulations provide no guidance on how institutions should navigate the resulting tensions. There is no framework for balancing competing obligations, no requirement to explain trade-offs and no obligation to demonstrate that the interests of English-speaking Quebeckers were assessed independently rather than absorbed into broader policy objectives.

When guidance is absent, decisions default to discretion. In Quebec, that discretion often favours preserving federal-provincial relations over advancing minority vitality. Without clearer statutory direction, there is a risk that part VII becomes procedurally satisfied but substantively diluted.

This concern is not theoretical. TALQ recently filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages regarding the Canada-Quebec agreement implementing the action plan for official languages. The complaint highlights shortcomings in the application of part VII—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Ms. Martin-Laforge, I'm sorry to interrupt you. The time is up, so could I ask you to wrap up soon? Then we can go to questions from members.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

Of course. Ms. Sandilands will not be speaking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

It's five minutes between you—

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

It's between us. Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

—but there will be lots of opportunity for discussion to cover the content you need to cover.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

Let me go to the closing, then.

In closing, TALQ supports these regulations as an important step forward. They enhance structure and accountability within the limits of the existing statute, but we must remain clear-eyed about their limits. Process alone will not deliver minority vitality. Achieving real outcomes requires statutory clarity, enforceable obligations and meaningful accountability, issues Parliament must address in the review of the act.

Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to the question and answer period with members.

We'll start with you, Mr. Godin. You have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies, for being here today.

What you said worries me. You said you were in favour of the draft regulations, but you don't think the Official Languages Act is satisfactory. I'm trying to understand why you're in favour of these draft regulations, which are in line with the act, which you don't think is doing the job.

Could you elaborate on that? It's not clear to me. It worries me that you're in favour at a second level, when you weren't in favour of our main topic. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

Part VII has been a concern for both official language minorities for years. For 20 years, maybe more, we've been worried about part VII in the act.

That means we're concerned about the proposed regulations regarding part VII of the act. However, we're seeing progress in the documentation work.

The paper trail will help everyone. There are procedural parts of part VII that are very good, but we are still concerned because of the alignment with the Charter of the French Language in the act.

We were against the modernization of the act, let's be clear, mostly because it included the Charter of the French Language. We are the only jurisdiction that has the construct of having provincial and federal within the act, so it shows in part VII regulations.

There's no way to break down how part VII of the act will help the English-speaking community, the French-speaking majority in Quebec and the French-speaking minority in the rest of Canada.

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

It's important to understand Quebec's unique situation. It's the only province where the common language is French. It should also be noted that New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada. These are facts.

Beyond that, I'm very comfortable with including the Charter of the French Language in the act to protect the last Gallic village overwhelmed by a sea of anglophones in North America. I have nothing against anglophones, it must be said. We have a real asset in Canada, namely two official languages. Bilingualism is a strength and, unfortunately, we aren't making the most of it.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

May I make a comment on that?

I don't disagree with you. What we are saying is that in part VII, the regulations do not express that complexity adequately. That's all.

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

Ms. Martin‑Laforge, you say that you're in favour of these draft regulations. In your opening remarks, you said that it was a marvel.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

No, no!

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

I exaggerated what you said. In fact, you said it was good in terms of the process. I'm of the same mind as you: There won't be any results.

You're happy with the draft regulations. You weren't in favour of Bill C‑13, but you're in favour of the draft regulations related to part VII—

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

I support what the draft regulations are trying to do in terms of process.

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

Yes, but when a regulation is passed, it's because we want to give ourselves the means to achieve results. However, you know as well as I do that there will be no results.

Are you in favour of the draft regulations? I'm asking this question because there will be no obstacles for anglophones in Quebec. The goal isn't to create obstacles for anglophones in Quebec.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

It's about continuous improvement. There is an improvement.

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

Okay.

In that case, what should be put in the regulations to improve things?

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

What should be put in the regulations?

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

Yes. This is an opportunity to say.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

There is one minute remaining.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

I'm not sure we can put everything in the regulations, because the act does not allow for much flexibility in the regulations. Better consultation, more results, performance indicators, and certainly, as I said earlier, a better understanding of how in Quebec there will be an alignment in our jurisdictional issues between the federal and the provincial.... Nobody talks about that much. We haven't heard anybody talk about this.

In fact, I'm being interviewed by l'Office québécois de la langue française in a few weeks. How are they going to come up with a solution as well? I have no idea.