Official Languages Committee on Feb. 26th, 2026

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

I'll be quick.

You said earlier that academic research was an area of federal jurisdiction. However, provincial governments also provide research funding. Ordinarily, even academic research should fall under provincial jurisdiction.

What do you think?

[Martin Normand]

Quebec has research funding, but the other provinces have little. Quebec is unique in that way. Otherwise, the federal government is responsible for funding and disseminating research across Canada.

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

English universities don't even have access to provincial research funding.

Is that right?

[Martin Normand]

That's right. There is none.

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

All right. I just learned something.

[Martin Normand]

Some provinces may have a tiny bit of funding, but no one really has an institutional funding program like the Fonds de recherche du Québec.

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

That's interesting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Honourable members, we will now begin the second round. I will be strict about enforcing speaking time so we can get through a full second round.

Mr. Dalton, you may go ahead. You have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us.

Mr. Normand, it's a pleasure to see you again.

When the modernized Official Languages Act was passed, I remember how happy and optimistic the organizations representing francophone minority communities were.

We now have two or three years' worth of results to examine, and what the committee has heard from witnesses is a bit worrisome.

What has changed in your field?

Have you seen visible improvements? Have you seen clear, tangible changes, more than just words?

[Martin Normand]

I want to start by correcting your initial impression.

The ACUFC expressed great disappointment when the two bills to amend the Official Languages Act were brought forward. We disagreed with the proposed approach. We raised a number of issues, including jurisdictional problems, that we were extremely concerned about. We weren't satisfied when Bill C‑32 and Bill C‑13 were introduced, and we still aren't.

We will propose tangible measures in our brief. From the outset, I'd say that when it comes to the approach and positive measures, the regulations need to encourage federal institutions to take positive measures outside the cycles in the regulations and to take those measures retroactively. It's important to assess whether existing mechanisms, programs, policies or initiatives are undermining efforts to achieve substantive equality. The regulations don't provide for that type of look back over existing policies. It's akin to saying that everything currently in place is fine, but that from now on, institutions are going to take action and remedy issues through positive measures.

The problem with the granting councils is a good example. A few weeks ago, we got the official languages commissioner's final report. It says that, after two years, one of the granting councils just refused to implement one of the commissioner's recommendations.

We're not able to get over that wall and the regulations aren't helping with that.

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

Thank you for clarifying that.

You had concerns before, and they're still there.

In your opinion, would you say that this document is more political and being used to show that the current government is doing something?

Regulations are all well and good, but they've been criticized. What's going on?

[Martin Normand]

First of all, any language issue in Canada is eminently political. Let's not kid ourselves.

That said, I wouldn't go so far as to reduce the Official Languages Act to an essentially political tool. It's the same thing with the regulations.

Nevertheless, we see it as the bare minimum. Those who drafted the legislation made a choice. I think we could choose another option that could lead us to a much more ambitious threshold.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Enayeh, apart from the funding issue, what's the most harmful measure the government has taken regarding women in official-language minority communities? What's the current situation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have 35 seconds left, Mr. Dalton.

[Nour Enayeh]

There's a real fear of budget cuts.

As soon as there's a change in government, the first thing we see and hear are rumours of budget cuts. It always affects minorities and women first.

So I would say that's one of our fears. That's why we always talk about core funding.

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

Thank you.

[Nour Enayeh]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Dalton.

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

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Witnesses, it's great to have you here.

Your testimony is making me very enthusiastic, because I think you're bringing solutions to the table.

You're talking about gender-based analysis plus, or GBA plus. Not everyone is familiar with this, or knows that it was implemented by Treasury Board in 2011. It allows all departments to evaluate data.

The “gender” in “gender-based” refers to men and women. The “plus” was added in 2011 to broaden the approach and include intersectionality. In 2019, it became mandatory to include this data in the budget.

You talk about the place of women. For a number of meetings, we've been talking about the problem of obtaining data on this. Currently, the data analysis system is also focused on gender equality.

The language lens is also one of your concerns. You say language mustn't be forgotten in all of this, that it's a key factor.

If we said that it should be run through GBA plus instead, which is required under the law, the approach could also be used to analyze the official languages situation. We could use the same data analysis system, but include the two languages in a structured manner for Treasury Board and all departments. We could then see the impact not only on men and women, but also on the two official languages.

Instead of seeing GBA plus as a tool to make sure that women aren't forgotten, we could use the existing system for official languages analysis. It's not just a “plus”, it's required under the law here. We could then look at data on gender equality, on the two official languages and, of course, on intersectionality. The data research process would already be set up.

Is that what you mean?

[Nour Enayeh]

Absolutely.

You've summed up exactly what we'd like to have. One solution would be to make it automatic every time.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Okay.

We need to put tools in place, and Treasury Board already has a well-established process for this. Let's integrate that dimension and highlight it. I'd like to draw everyone's attention to this.

Mr. Normand, one of our witnesses referred to the framework for the vitality of official-language minority communities, or OLMCs. The framework emphasizes education, cultural activities and the presence of institutions. It also refers to ongoing provision of services, the visibility of the minority language, as well as the economic and social expansion of the community.

Basically, it only affects a certain number of departments. It doesn't affect everybody. The fact that it isn't present everywhere fuels dissatisfaction. We've heard that from a lot of witnesses.

We have to make sure that the foundation is there and that we use this framework to establish meaningful indicators. A number of witnesses have said that it has to be meaningful. We need to examine the vitality of OLMCs through this framework and integrate it in a more structured way into the regulations.

Would that be something constructive?

I will come back to innovation later.

[Martin Normand]

My fear is that certain federal institutions will be let off the hook.

Personally, I don't agree that we should only target the federal institutions that appear to be the most relevant on the list.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I'll stop you there because that's my point.

I agree that this is necessary. However, we need to take a broader view. They shouldn't be let off the hook based on this alone. That said, it provides a foundation that can be used to gather very concrete and useful data for measuring results.

Now, I want to go back to what you said.

In your opinion, we need to look at existing programs, and there are many programs. We need to do it, but it's an incredible undertaking. Reviewing all of our programs through this lens will take several years.

However, we can already take advantage of the data from GBA plus. It might be relevant to say that, for all new programs, whether it's Build Canada Homes or the programs we're setting up in the defence sector, it's urgent to ensure that their analysis is based on this data to see what we can do.

For departments that don't have those new programs, we have to look at priorities by measuring the impact on what's been done in the past. This can be done using the data. It allows all departments to look at what needs to be done. This prevents people from just checking a box. It makes it possible to move forward and improve things in relation to everything that's coming. We need to set priorities in all existing programs and target what more we can do, based on GBA plus data.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

There are only 15 seconds left, so please give a very brief answer.

[Martin Normand]

I don't agree with that approach.

If we focus solely on what's new, we will overlook all the historical and structural injustices documented over the past 25 to 30 years.

Furthermore, consultation and dialogue exercises should be used to identify the programs that need to be prioritized for review.