Official Languages Committee on Feb. 26th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Welcome to meeting number 23 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 (advancement of equality of status and use of English and French) regulations.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

From the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne, we're joined by Nour Enayeh, president, and Soukaina Boutiyeb, executive director. Welcome, both of you.

From the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, we're joined by Martin Normand, president and chief executive officer. Welcome, Mr. Normand.

Each organization will have five minutes to speak. We'll then open the floor to questions from the members.

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

[Nour Enayeh, President, Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of Parliament, on behalf of the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne, thank you for inviting us to appear before you.

My name is Nour Enayeh. I'm the president of the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne, or AFFC. I'm joined by Soukaina Boutiyeb, the executive director.

The AFFC is a national feminist not‑for‑profit organization dedicated to promoting the role and contribution of over 1.5 million francophone and Acadian women living in minority communities. We're backed by a network of 17 member organizations across the country.

I would like to start by emphasizing the key role played by women in passing on the language, a factor often undervalued in public language policies. Francophone and Acadian women are true pillars of official language minority communities. They play a vital role as guardians of the language and they ensure the vitality of our communities.

We would like to reaffirm our full support for the recommendations of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA. These recommendations constitute a solid and crucial foundation. However, we would like to add a factor that we consider critical to accurately reflecting the reality of Canada's francophonie. The Official Languages Act shouldn't be watered down in the name of intersectionality, but should be seen as complementary to it. These two principles must go hand in hand, clearly and unambiguously.

Yet the current approach to gender‑based analysis plus, or GBA plus, when implemented without a language lens, weakens and even renders invisible official language minority communities. A truly intersectional perspective must build on the Official Languages Act, not compete with it.

We can see the productive role of GBA plus in the development of all public policies. However, when this approach is implemented without taking the language component into account, it runs the risk of pitting language rights and diversity issues against each other, when they should be strengthening each other. A properly applied intersectionality never undermines language rights. It consolidates and contextualizes them.

We must remember that francophone women, with their multiple identities, belong first and foremost to an official language minority community. This membership profoundly shapes their lives, their access to services and their socio-economic conditions. Their reality, often marked by a double or even triple marginalization—as women, as francophones in a minority situation and as a result of other identity factors—increases their vulnerability. This leads to precarious situations that all too often remain invisible in the analyses, public policies and decision‑making processes.

Strong official language minority communities are, above all, communities where language rights are fully integrated into the analysis and decision‑making process. Effective regulations take into account the realities faced by all women, without ever pitting their identity against their language rights.

Our message is clear. The intersectionality must complement the Official Languages Act. It must never replace or weaken the act. The two must be implemented together rigorously, consistently and in compliance with legal obligations. The protection of our language rights is never a side issue. It's fundamental. This protection makes it possible for our communities to exist, to pass on their culture and to look to the future with confidence.

That's why we're asking you to strengthen these regulations so that they fully reflect this reality. We must ensure that the regulations are clear, ambitious and in line with the Official Languages Act. A properly implemented intersectionality protects our language rights rather than watering them down. The vitality of our communities depends on the willingness to embrace this complementarity.

Thank you for your attention. We look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Ms. Enayeh.

I'll now give the floor to Mr. Normand for five minutes.

[Martin Normand, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne]

Thank you.

In 2005, the Official Languages Act was amended to include the possibility of establishing regulations to govern the implementation of part VII. However, that year, a Department of Justice lawyer expressed concern that the greater the level of detail in the regulations, the greater the risk of limiting the scope of part VII. In other words, the potential for innovation was greater in the absence of regulations.

The situation has changed. Part VII has been greatly expanded, and regulations have become a necessity. However, the warnings of the past have come to fruition. The Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, or ACUFC, considers that the draft regulations for part VII run contrary to the legislator's intentions, considerably reduce its scope and fail to give federal institutions the means to take proactive action to advance the substantive equality of the two official languages.

We'll soon be sending you a more comprehensive brief that elaborates on the observations shared today. However, I would like to focus on three of our general concerns.

First, the regulations run a high risk of stifling innovation in official languages. In our view, the proposed regulations fail to encourage federal institutions to develop positive measures outside the parameters indicated, meaning at specific stages in government actions or when determining the potential negative effects of key decisions. On the contrary, the regulatory framework should encourage, for example, federal institutions to develop positive measures that reflect their mandate or to review current measures that fail to advance the official languages towards substantive equality. Rather than acting as a suffocating ceiling, the regulations must serve as a foundation that propels us together towards concrete, positive and purposeful measures. The proposed framework is too restrictive. It encourages inertia rather than proactive action.

Second, the draft regulations' proposals regarding the analyses, their use in dialogue and consultation activities and their inclusion in final decisions fall short of the mark. The proposed regulations don't state how these analyses must be carried out or who is responsible for producing the data to support them. Some institutions have developed best practices in this area that could serve as a benchmark. There also aren't any plans to publicize the results of these analyses, particularly in preparation for consultation activities. Federal institutions are encouraged only to record the results of the analyses. Yet the results should be shared in the run‑up to consultation activities to ensure that the relevant information makes the consultations effective. Federal institutions also aren't expected to report on how the consultations played a part in the final decision‑making process. The proposed regulations deviate from best practices in civic engagement.

Third, we're bringing back a legislative oversight of long‑standing concern. The act and draft regulations have ruts that limit the scope of federal, provincial and territorial relations. The emphasis on agreements obscures the variety of interactions among the levels of government. A number of federal institutions have developed positive measures that directly affect the post‑secondary sector in francophone minority communities. Yet the act opens the door to an uneven implementation of these measures if the governments refuse to work with federal institutions. We hoped that the regulations would provide a framework for dealing with interjurisdictional conflicts and that they would create effective and equitable conditions for the development of measures with a direct and ongoing impact. The regulations uphold a restrictive vision of government relations, which may hinder the achievement of the legislator's objectives.

The draft regulations are riddled with grey areas and loopholes. These will have a serious impact on the ability of federal institutions to advance the equality of status and use of English and French and to support the development and vitality of francophone minority communities and the strong institutions that serve them. The post‑secondary institutions in particular are crucial in helping to achieve federal objectives. These objectives include providing opportunities for lifelong French‑language learning; supporting key sectors such as health care, justice and early childhood education; and working to restore the demographic weight of francophone minority communities.

As a result, we would like to see more robust regulations that encourage innovation. The ACUFC recommends that Treasury Board take note of the widespread dissatisfaction with the draft regulations, review the regulations in light of the main concerns raised by all stakeholders and come back with regulations that better reflect the legislator's intentions and that set an example in terms of consultations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you very much, Mr. Normand.

We'll now move on to questions from members.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us in person. There are no technical issues when the witnesses are here. I could talk about past experiences, but I won't go there.

Mr. Normand, Ms. Enayeh, what I understand is that, for various reasons, the draft regulations don't meet your expectations, or your respective visions.

Ms. Enayeh, what elements would you like to see in the regulations?

You talked about intersectionality. Can you be more specific?

Do you have any suggestion as to what should be included in the regulations?

I'll ask Mr. Normand the same question afterwards.

[Nour Enayeh]

Since gender-based analysis plus already appears in the legislation, the language lens must also be included. That's really it.

What I mean by intersectionality is that by saying francophone women are part of intersectionality and diversity, we take away the entire notion of official languages.

That's what we'd like to see. We'd like the language lens to be included in the GBA plus.

Ms. Boutiyeb, would you like to add something?

[Soukaina Boutiyeb, Executive Director, Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne]

Regarding intersectionality, the current practice is to take the various identity factors into consideration. Some departments often say they don't want to mention francophone women or the linguistic minority situation specifically so as not to favour one group over another. Instead of being specific, they just talk about intersectionality, and that's it.

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

You're diluting yourself.

[Soukaina Boutiyeb]

That's exactly right.

With this dilution, the reality of francophone women, and more importantly their basic needs, become invisible.

Let's take, for example, the national action plan to end gender-based violence. There are no tangible language measures in this action plan, and that clearly has a negative impact. There were no positive measures included in that action plan.

At the moment, women don't really have access to services on the ground.

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

If I can summarize your remarks, you'd like the regulations to include a language lens specifically for francophone women so that your difficult situation is taken into consideration.

You also want to grow, I don't mean as a minority, but as a group. You want to grow and have your rights recognized so you can take your place in this whole development process.

Is that correct?

[Soukaina Boutiyeb]

Absolutely. We can't let our rights be diluted.

It's just a matter of understanding and making everyone understand that the word “intersectionality” doesn't mean failing to comply with the Official Languages Act. The act exists. There are various identity factors within our communities, but most of us are still part of the francophone community.

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

Yes. Thank you.

Mr. Normand, Ms. Linda Cardinal, a professor from the University of Ottawa, came to testify earlier this week. She said we needed to erase everything and start over.

You essentially said the same thing in your opening remarks. You seem quite dissatisfied with the regulations. I'd like to remind you that it took three years to draft those regulations. Also, from what I understand, they're not consistent with the act.

How do we fix that? Based on what you said, we need to change course and start over.

Can you help us be more effective? We don't want to take another three years to write a new version.

[Martin Normand]

I wouldn't say to erase everything and redraft the regulations. I think what we have here is the bare minimum.

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

That's the first version.

[Martin Normand]

It's a bare minimum. We'd hoped these regulations would bring clarity to help federal institutions take positive measures.

Actually, I feel these regulations are codifying loopholes or how to do the bare minimum to comply with the Official Languages Act.

The act is a step towards substantive equality. It should propel us to a new place where we don't have to once again explain to a federal institution that it has linguistic obligations. I frequently have to do that.

We're still facing a wall in some federal institutions. Public servants don't understand their language obligations. The regulations should be the road map for these public servants to understand that they have obligations and that there are tools to implement them. This can open up possibilities for analysis and action, which can be strengthened by consultation activities provided for in the regulations, but they should be improved in order to achieve a more formative action.

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

You're going to submit a brief to the committee.

Is that right?

[Martin Normand]

Yes, that's right.

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

If I understand you correctly, you're saying the regulations stifle innovation and, instead of being constructive and productive, they're somewhat restrictive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have 15 seconds left, Mr. Godin.

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

Okay.

Mr. Normand, I'll come back to this next time, because you won't even have time to give me an answer in 15 seconds.

I liked your presentation. We have similar points of view.

That said, help us put the necessary tools in place so we can be more effective and meet our objectives.

Thank you.

[Martin Normand]

It'll be in the brief.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their remarks.

My first question is for the representatives of the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne.

In your remarks, you said the Official Languages Act must be designed to complement intersectionality, that they must reinforce each other. From what I understand, that's not always the case.

Can you give us some specific examples where it's been an issue and where the strong implementation of part VII through regulation could have a positive impact?

[Nour Enayeh]

I'll start with an example related to the national action plan to end gender-based violence.

When we talk to a department like Women and Gender Equality Canada, people ask us why francophone women should be prioritized over others. There are indigenous women, women with disabilities, and so on. They're making us compete with other groups, but we don't want to do that. We're not competing with indigenous women or any other group. That said, there is an Official Languages Act.

Public servants and departments don't seem to automatically take this into account. On the contrary, we're told that it's because of intersectionality.