Official Languages Committee on March 10th, 2026

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Désilets and Mr. Léger. It's always interesting to hear what you have to say and to see you in person. No technical issues that way.

Mr. Désilets, you said in your opening statement that, theoretically, the government gave us a nice bouquet, if I can put it that way, but nothing concrete and no tools. Could you help us identify the elements we should incorporate into the draft regulations?

As Mr. Léger said, the smartest path, if you will, may be to ask Treasury Board to go back to the drawing board.

[Antoine Désilets]

I'm given to respect my college Mr. Léger's experience and expertise.

When it comes to the bilateral agreements, there were no regulations, but the Official Languages Act had been modernized, and Ottawa had a tacit bilateral agreement, in black and white, with the provinces to take into account official language minority communities. That did not translate into any real-world measures, except in one province, Alberta, which did make investments directly in the community.

You asked me what should be incorporated into the regulations, and I think we can look to Alberta to see what works. The province is applying the “by and for” principle, meaning that, under the bilateral agreement, it agreed to work directly with francophone groups to put health services in place in accordance with the province's request. Then, under the agreement, Alberta put an actual number on the funding available for French-language activities and included that in its action plan. In my opinion, those are positive measures. In other words, the province worked with the groups that represent francophone communities, in keeping with the “nothing about me without me” principle.

As for your second question, you asked whether the draft regulations should be sent back to Treasury Board. I think they are significantly flawed, and I don't think they will help the situation I described in my opening statement. To my mind, the regulations don't go far enough in providing clarification on a number of elements.

Today, a federal public servant—whose responsibility it is to implement the act—told me that the Official Languages Act does not impose any official languages obligations on the provinces. I completely agree. There's a big difference between imposing an obligation and taking the necessary measures to enhance the vitality of francophone and anglophone minority communities in Canada. In light of this grey area, though, the public service is doing nothing.

That is where regulations could clearly state what it means to take the necessary measures to enhance the vitality of minority language communities. That's not an obligation, which is something else.

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

They need to be much more practical and provide a lot more in the way of tools.

[Antoine Désilets]

The tool box should clarify things like when to analyze a decision's impact on official languages, which I think should happen at the very beginning of the negotiating process for a new agreement, one of many bilateral agreements across the country. Further analyses should be carried out during, and at the end of, the process to see whether the agreement helps to meet the objectives.

Lastly, without such tools, sticking with the tool box analogy, the natural tendency is to take the path of least resistance, something that does not enhance the vitality of francophone communities.

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

I heard you say that institutions have to do things not just when they're easy. When a situation is hard is really when institutions need to refer to the regulations. When things are going smoothly day in and day out is not when institutions need to refer to the regulations. They need to do so in specific situations.

I hear you when you say that indicators are needed. Assessments are needed. An analysis has to be done at the beginning of the process, during the process and at the end of the process. You don't see that in the regulations.

[Antoine Désilets]

Currently, no, I don't see that in the draft regulations.

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

Having that in black and white, in the draft regulations, would really go a long way towards giving you the tools you need. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I just want to make sure I understood you correctly.

[Antoine Désilets]

You understood correctly. I listed impact analysis as an example of a positive measure I think could be taken. It should be in the regulations. Usually, it's not done if it's not required. It's already in the act, but it isn't being done. How, then, do we make sure an impact analysis is done? By bringing in stronger, clearer regulations, with no ambiguity, or leeway to disregard the parts that are less useful on a day-to-day basis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Désilets.

Mr. Léger, you talked about the principle of progress towards substantive equality. In your view, it exists philosophically, but not in the regulations, which provide no practical support to respect the principle.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Godin.

[Rémi Léger]

To my mind, that is the ultimate purpose of the modernized Official Languages Act. That is the progress that was made between 1988 and 2023, at which point, the backbone of the act became advancement towards substantive equality. That is what underpins the act today.

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

Where does that stand in the draft regulations?

[Rémi Léger]

The principle is missing from the draft regulations, in my opinion, and that is a total failure. That new ambition laid out in the act now has to be implemented.

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

In practical terms, Mr. Léger, how can we improve the draft regulations?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Léger, please be very brief, because the member's time is up.

[Rémi Léger]

I think the draft regulations should have a preamble, a purpose, at the very beginning, laying out the new vision that centres on substantive equality. Then it's about figuring out what that looks like in the rest of the regulations, what the tools and mechanisms are for measuring the impact.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

We now go to Mr. Villeneuve for six minutes.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee, gentlemen. Thank you for being here and contributing to our study. This is important work.

Mr. Désilets, why do regulations that ensure the robust implementation of part VII of the Official Languages Act matter in your field? Since health is an area of provincial jurisdiction, what might that look like in practical terms?

[Antoine Désilets]

You're right. The administration of health care is wholly under provincial jurisdiction.

In the discussion on official languages, I think it's more about looking at how the federal government fulfills its own official languages obligations. Every year, the federal government gives the provinces between $55 billion and $60 billion for health care, through health transfers or agreements. That doesn't even include transfers for social services and such. That's a lot of money. The federal government invests nearly $60 billion in health care every year.

Right now, the entirety of that funding is not subject to official languages conditions. The way I interpret the act, some bilateral agreements are supposed to take language clauses into account, or as the act states, the necessary measures are to be taken to promote the inclusion in those agreements of such language provisions. That does not mean putting obligations on the provinces. It means doing something. As I see it, there is currently no clarity on what was done to promote the inclusion of language clauses. If that was done, if those efforts were made, they are not apparent to the French-speaking community.

That requires straight dealing on the federal government's part in terms of identifying expectations related to official languages in those rare cases in health care where levers for action exist. The bilateral agreements are one of those rare cases where the federal government can take action. It has agreements in principle accepted by the provinces. That's not the same as health transfers. All the provinces agreed to the principles, including equal access for official language minority communities.

There are no regulations currently. The act exists, but it has no effect. I am saying that the negotiating parties need to be empowered; that aspect of the negotiations has to be made very clear. What does “promote” mean? In order to promote, perhaps it's necessary to ask whether the other negotiating party has identified an expectation. Was an impact analysis shared? When there was nothing, how did the government respond to a plan that had no language lens, despite being necessary under the basic principles?

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Désilets.

Mr. Léger, in the act, the federal government commits to promoting French as part of Canada’s diplomatic relations. The draft regulations provide no details on how the government is to implement that commitment in the real world, or what oversight or accountability mechanism will be used to ensure implementation.

Do you think the regulations should have explicitly laid out the operational expectations and oversight obligations? What's your take on that?

[Rémi Léger]

That's actually a distinctive feature of the regulations. The new part VII, in the modernized act, was significantly beefed up from the 1988 version. The draft regulations pertain specifically to a few provisions of part VII, subsections 7 to 10. Subections 1 to 6 of part VII are not covered by the draft regulations.

Scientific knowledge appears a bit later, in section 42, so it isn't covered either.

Basically, on one hand, you have part VII, which is fleshed out and ambitious, and seeks to promote substantive equality. On the other hand, you have the draft regulations, which are narrow in scope and cover specific provisions of part VII. To me, that's a mistake, frankly.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you very much.

You can decide who answers this next question. I have about a minute and 50 seconds left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have two minutes.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Very well. That's kind of you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Désilets and Mr. Léger, we've often been told that certain departments are waiting for the regulations to come into force before meeting their obligations under part VII of the modernized act, even though the act has been in effect since it received royal assent in 2023.

Would you say that departments have done a good job of meeting their obligations under part VII since then? Also, should those efforts come from the Treasury Board Secretariat or the department responsible for the program?

[Antoine Désilets]

That's a good description of the situation. Yes, the new Official Languages Act has been in effect since June 2023. Personally, I don't work with every federal institution. I work mainly with Health Canada. I've seen Health Canada show leadership on this, by trying to define aspects of the act that were unclear, especially in relation to constructive policies or measures. The department came up with definitions internally of what may be meant.

At the end of the day, that doesn't make up for the lack of regulatory clarity, leaving each federal institution to come up with its own interpretation. Even when an institution shows leadership on a certain issue—I talked about the difference between taking measures to “promote” and “imposing obligations”—some things still aren't understood. Regulations are needed to ensure that everyone has the same understanding. Right now, everyone is groping along, trying to figure out how to meet their obligations.

As I see it, many of the obligations in the act are not being met, but it's important to put that in context. The link to Treasury Board is complex. It has a new role when it comes to official languages. There are many reasons why things are stalled.