Evidence of meeting #22 for Official Languages in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was draft.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director General, Talking. Advocating. Living in Quebec.
As mentioned earlier, I won't be changing the act today. The act is what it is. So, if we find that the regulations don't adequately meet the needs of the FCFA or TALQ, we'll have to find some means.
There must be a sweet spot somewhere in those regulations where we could all agree. What's the sweet spot? I think Marion might be able to answer that more precisely, but I'd like you all to think about it. We all want a sweet spot here in the regulations.
February 24th, 2026 / 4:25 p.m.
Lawyer, Talking. Advocating. Living in Quebec.
In our brief, we talk about the history of part VII—
Liberal
Louis Villeneuve Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Can you turn on your microphone? I need the interpretation.
Lawyer, Talking. Advocating. Living in Quebec.
I'm sorry about that.
In our brief, we talk about the history of part VII and it being really general. It became justiciable at one point, and then the modernization movement happened from 2017 all the way through to 2022. All of the minority communities were asking for the same thing: more specificity in part VII and more teeth.
All kinds of proposals came out about how to better define positive measures and how to better specify them. Put definitions and outcomes in the act. What the modernized act actually says is federal institutions must take “positive measures”. It doesn't define them and it doesn't require any specific positive measures, so although part VII is more detailed and has more words, most of that detail is still procedural.
It's an obligation of means, not of results. That's the framework within which the draft regulations are set. There are limits to what the draft regulations can do because of the framework of the act.
Liberal
Louis Villeneuve Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you very much.
How does TALQ monitor the access of English-speaking Quebeckers to federal services in English, particularly in regions where that access is limited?
Director General, Talking. Advocating. Living in Quebec.
How do we measure it ourselves?
Director General, Talking. Advocating. Living in Quebec.
We consult a lot.
We're on the ground.
You talked about the Townshippers. Let me give you a good-news story. Many years ago, the first action plan came out. There has been a progression of the understanding of the needs and priorities of the English-speaking community over the years. In the last action plan, a big chunk of money—$100 million—came to support economic prosperity and vulnerability in employment. That was the first time we saw something we needed in the act. Townshippers got a nice chunk of money out of that.
The institutions are trying, but they listen. It's always by listening, paying attention, coming to our events and looking at the vitality framework.... Those are the ways we know that the efforts of the federal government are making a difference. We know that because we've been asking.
It's not only about checking the boxes. There has been a serious understanding of what our needs are and of funding those needs.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
You have 20 seconds left, Mr. Villeneuve, but since you're telling me you're done, that's fine.
That completes our time.
On behalf of all members, I'd like to thank you, Ms. Martin-Laforge and Ms. Sandilands, for being here. I apologize that we started a bit late because of the commemoration of the four-year anniversary of the war in Ukraine, but we thank you for your contributions.
Colleagues, I'm going to suspend the meeting for a few minutes to allow the members of the next panel of witnesses to take their seats.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
I call the meeting back to order.
Welcome to meeting number 22 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
We will now continue with the second panel of witnesses, whom I would like to welcome.
As an individual, we have Linda Cardinal, professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa, by video conference.
From the Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences, we have the chair, Geoffroy Krajewski, who will testify by video conference, and Denis Desgagné, who is the executive director and who is participating in the meeting in person.
Each organization will have five minutes for their opening remarks. Afterwards, we will proceed with a question period with the members.
Ms. Cardinal, we will now begin with you. You have the floor for five minutes.
Linda Cardinal Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
I am currently the co-chair of the External Advisory Panel on the Creation and Dissemination of Scientific Information in French, but I'm speaking to you today in an individual capacity as a language policy specialist and professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa's School of Political Studies.
From the outset, I'm making a first recommendation, which I will explain later.
The draft regulations need to be reworked and revised to give them more relevance and scope. It's important to remember part VII has an undeniably political character. In 1988, it was intended to complement the provision on Quebec's distinct character in the Meech Lake Accord by making the Canadian government the trustee of official language minorities.
However, the political nature of part VII it will make its implementation difficult. As the trustee of official language minorities, the Government of Canada assumes the obligation to ensure the vitality and development of official language minorities, including in areas under provincial jurisdiction, such as culture, health and social services. It should therefore come as no surprise that it was only in 2003, thanks to the publication of the first action plan for official languages, that the implementation of part VII could finally begin.
The late Senator Gauthier understood at the time that the new part VII had no teeth, as he put it. In 2005, he succeeded in having a new provision added to the Official Languages Act requiring the government to take positive measures in order to make the Official Languages Act enforceable, and also justiciable by enabling recourse to the Federal Court of Canada.
In 2005, Senator Gauthier also hoped for regulations for part VII, but it took 20 years for that to happen.
Certainly, the new Official Languages Act confirms the essential role of part VII in guiding government action toward official language minorities. It also relies on the concept of positive measures as an indispensable element of its implementation. However, the proposed regulations, which drive this implementation, do not meet the expectations placed on them.
Like part VII, the draft regulations inherit its political character. They express good intentions, but nothing concrete. They contain no specific directions. They provide for the production of analyses, the results of which will be recorded without any indication of how they are to be published or circulated. They provide for dialogues and consultations, but nothing very binding.
It's unclear how the analyses recorded will be used to improve the proposed initiatives or confirm their role in advancing—let's not forget—substantive equality.
Frankly, the proposed draft regulation avoids establishing a methodology that would inject dynamism into the implementation of part VII. It is a draft that, in fact, weakens part VII by failing to provide clear directions for its implementation. It does not provide the means to produce lasting results in pursuit of substantive equality, including in the case of federal-provincial-territorial agreements.
My main recommendation is therefore that the draft regulations be reworked and revised to give them greater relevance and scope. They must provide direction for taking positive measures to overcome barriers to substantive equality. These measures, as stated in the Official Languages Act, must be concrete and must be taken with the intention of having a favourable effect on the implementation of the Government of Canada's commitments under section 6 of part VII. The draft regulations cannot avoid this requirement. They must explain how they understand these two dimensions: concrete measures and the intention to have a favourable effect.
Let's move on to my second recommendation.
I recommend that the draft regulations define what a concrete measure is and include directions that will guide the work of public servants in identifying and developing them.
Concrete measures, as can be extrapolated from the Official Languages Act, must be based on the needs of official language minorities, which will be identified through dialogue and consultation activities. Part VII speaks of concrete measures because they must necessarily be rooted in a specific context or place, respond to needs and produce structuring results. However, none of this is addressed in the draft regulations, yet these are definitional elements that could help guide action. Directives to identify concrete measures and analyze them to identify good practices could not only help with the implementation of part VII, but also be used to develop them.
My third recommendation relates to the need for guidance on measuring intent to have a positive effect on the implementation of the government's commitments as set out in part VII.
To that end, my recommendation is that the draft regulations propose a methodology based on language-based differential analysis, which is now commonly referred to as a lens. Such an approach already exists within the Canadian government at Employment and Social Development Canada or at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Treasury Board could draw on this to complete its guidance for the development of concrete measures.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
Ms. Cardinal, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but the time is well up. I would ask you to conclude in one or two sentences so that we can move on to members' questions.
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes. I was coming to my conclusion.
I'll just say that the draft regulations are lazy. They announce regulations that won't fix anything. Three years have been lost. We can only hope that revising the draft regulations won't take another three years.
Thank you for your attention.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
Thank you, Ms. Cardinal.
Before moving on to the next presentation, I would ask Mr. Krajewski to speak for a few seconds because I know that we've been working on the sound.
Geoffroy Krajewski Chair, Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences
Yes, good afternoon. I was indeed on the line with a technician, who told me it hadn't yet been validated by the interpreters. Is it now? Can you hear me okay?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
It's working. Thank you.
I'll give the floor to the Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences for five minutes.
Chair, Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, we would first like to thank you for including us in your work. Having been closely involved in the work on Bill C‑13, we are fully aware of the important role that your committee played in this file and that it continues to play now with these draft regulations.
My name is Geoffroy Krajewski. I am chair of the Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences, known as RESDAC. With me today is our executive director, Denis Desgagné, who is attending the meeting in person. We have prepared a short brief that we are submitting and that we invite you to consult. It contains specific recommendations regarding the draft regulations. In the time allotted to us in our opening remarks, we would like to highlight a few points.
First, I would like to say a few words about the concept at the heart of our mandate, which is lifelong learning in a francophone minority. That concept is now enshrined in subsection 41(3) of the Official Languages Act. This is one of the most innovative changes that came out of Bill C‑13. For the first time, a quasi-constitutional text recognizes that the social, economic, cultural and identity success of francophones in Canada requires learning opportunities beyond the institutional framework of primary, secondary and post-secondary education.
To succeed in 2026, francophones must have opportunities in their language and throughout their lives to expand their skills, enabling them to operate successfully in a world facing complex social and economic challenges. Every day across the country, hundreds of organizations and businesses offer such learning opportunities in non-formal and informal settings. Unfortunately, there is a great need for leadership and positive measures to ensure that francophone organizations and businesses in minority communities can have access to the same resources as Canada's English-speaking majority. To succeed, these organizations and businesses need the support of the federal government, as provided for in the Official Languages Act.
The draft regulations were tabled almost three years after Bill C‑13 came into force. In considering the merits of these draft regulations, we believe it's important to highlight the lack of significant progress in implementing the new provisions of the act. There is no justification for the current lack of action. The role of the Treasury Board Secretariat should be transformed, and we should already have a new relationship and a new collaboration with the various federal departments that reflect the provisions of part VII of the act. However, we are still a long way from that scenario.
In its brief, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada submitted recommendations that we support. Our goal here is to clarify or highlight four points that relate to lifelong learning. First, with regard to the factors to be considered in the analyses that federal institutions should conduct, the list currently included in paragraph 4(4)(b) of the draft regulations must add, in subparagraph (vi), a direct reference to learning in a non-formal and informal contexts; otherwise, it would be a step backward from what is provided for in the Official Languages Act. Our brief includes wording to that effect.
Second, with regard to all the work involved in conducting analyses to support the development of positive measures or the adoption of language clauses in agreements signed with the provinces and territories, it is imperative that these analyses be shared with the communities that are specifically targeted by them. The wording of subsection 4(5) of the draft regulations is inadequate because it simply requires these analyses to be recorded. We therefore recommend that subsection 4(5) of the draft regulations be amended to require federal institutions to systematically publish the entirety of the analyses they conduct in the context of part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Third, with regard to the language clauses in the agreements signed between the federal government and the provinces and territories, it is essential to ensure a high level of transparency in this matter. In its current form, susbsection 7(4) of the draft regulations provides that federal institutions shall notify the President of the Treasury Board of the publication of any agreement made under subsection 41(10.1) of the act. Such notification is of no use to our communities unless they are also informed of these publications. We recommend that subsection 7(4) of the draft regulations be amended to create an obligation for Treasury Board to include in its annual reports a list of all language clauses adopted during the fiscal year covered by each report.
Finally, the draft regulations must clarify the procedures for managing situations where a federal institution fails to meet its obligations under part VII of the Official Languages Act. The nature of these obligations and the interactions that are anticipated between federal institutions and our communities mean that it would be ineffective and inefficient to expect francophone communities to systematically turn to the Commissioner of Official Languages or the Federal Court every time a problem arises. While these two avenues remain essential, they are nonetheless insufficient. We therefore recommend that provisions be added to provide for alternative methods of dispute resolution between a federal institution and our communities.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the addition of subsection 41(3) to the Official Languages Act represents a historic gain for our communities. The regulations adopted in support of this provision must now enable it to have the anticipated impact. Considerable work remains to be done to achieve this.
Thank you for your attention. We are available to answer your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
Thank you, Mr. Krajewski.
I will now give the floor to Mr. Godin for six minutes.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being with us, Ms. Cardinal and Mr. Karjewski. Mr. Desgagné, thank you for being here in person in Ottawa.
Ms. Cardinal, we haven't spoken, and I wasn't the one who invited you, but your words are music to my ears. For years now, I've been shouting from the rooftops that I don't believe the bill achieves the initial objectives. Moreover, after three years of work, the Treasury Board Secretariat came up with these draft regulations, which I find very underwhelming.
Now, let's be constructive. Where should we start? What priorities do we need to set? You're well aware that we won't end up with a perfect set of regulations as we review these draft regulations. How do we tackle the problem, and what are the priorities? Can you briefly suggest an action plan that will give us results at the end of the process?
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Godin.
I'm very happy to talk to you because you've always been travelling or busy with other things whenever I've appeared before the committee, so I'm really pleased to meet you.
Where do you start? I would say that, when the regulations go back to the drawing board, you take out all the wording that includes things like “possible”, “maybe” and “potential”. That kind of language is very wishy-washy. I invite you to add up how many times the words “possible” and “potential” are in there.
These regulations talk the talk but don't walk the walk, if you will. I think the first thing to do is insert directives wherever the word “possible” or “potential” appears. The regulations have to say what to do instead of making suggestions with words like “possible” and “potential”. Suggestions like that don't work in regulations.
It's important to understand that regulations aren't mandatory; they're optional. However, the regulations were deemed necessary to implement part VII because there was a problem before and that implementation was tricky. I think the folks at Canadian Heritage are currently doing a very good job with respect to the Official Languages Act, but it was determined that regulations were needed, so we waited three years for the regulations. There were consultations. Then they came up with draft regulations that echo the text of the act but provide no directives for agreements between the federal government and the provinces and territories or for any aspect of part VII. In addition, the draft regulations have forgotten or neglected to include anything about promoting French in diplomatic relations.
These regulations must help achieve specific objectives, including substantive equality, but they lack directives for the advancement of equality of status and use of French and English. The regulations do not appear to align with the objective.
You should start by working on that.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you, Ms. Cardinal.
I apologize for my absences in the past, but I'm here now and I'm going to make the most of it.
You said in your opening remarks that we need to define concrete measures. I think that's similar to what you said just now. How can we define concrete measures, and what elements should be included to provide guidelines for interpretation to make it easier and binding?
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
What you're saying is interesting, because the term “positive measures” has been in the act since 2005. That suggests the government may have experience in developing positive measures. Has Treasury Board researched past good practices relating to positive measures? It could have used that as a basis for determining what constitutes a positive measure.
There's a 2001 document that I highly recommend consulting. It was prepared by Claude Le Blanc, who was at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages at the time, and it's based on research done by COMPAS on the implementation of part VII and positive measures. At the time, the expression “positive measures” was not yet in the act, but people were talking about it anyway, and other terms were used. Mr. Le Blanc made some 30 recommendations to support the implementation of the act, and he had studied sectors such as culture and human resources to see what the best practices were.
It would be wrong to say that Treasury Board doesn't have access to important literature on the subject. It's clear that the work was based on consultations, but there is experience within the federal government. For example, we currently have the policy on francophone immigration. Why not envision that policy as a positive measure?
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you, Ms. Cardinal. I think you've clearly identified potential solutions.
Do you think we should essentially wipe the slate clean and create new regulations?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
Ms. Cardinal, please give a one-sentence answer, because we're out of time.
Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
You have to go back to the drawing board. That doesn't mean everything has to be wiped clean, but it really needs a lot of revision, like when a student does a poor job on a class assignment.