Official Languages Committee on March 10th, 2026

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

You mentioned the cultural sector's heavy reliance on funding from Canadian Heritage. What changes should be made to diversify federal funding sources for francophone cultural organizations?

[Nancy Juneau]

I'll take the liberty of answering the question.

I think that's exactly what we're discussing with respect to these draft part VII regulations. It's about ensuring that all federal government institutions—including the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the department that handles training and the department that handles economic development—make sure our needs are taken into account. The act has designated us as an essential sector, but despite that, we're still struggling to make inroads with these departments.

I see the draft regulations as an opportunity to encourage these departments, which are a bit more opaque to our sector, to do a little more to reach out to us, listen to us and include us in their programs and policies.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Thank you.

In your opinion, should other federal agencies and departments have clearer obligations to support francophone culture in their programs?

Anyone can answer my question.

[Gabriel Poliquin]

Is your question about their programs or the draft regulations themselves?

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

The question is about their programs.

[Gabriel Poliquin]

The FCCF's answer would certainly be yes.

How does this play out in the regulations? The regulations, which are of general application, say nothing about culture being an essential sector. Let me explain how that translates.

For example, when it comes to consultations, the FCCF is an expert body on cultural matters. So the regulations could provide that, when a federal institution conducts a consultation on essential sectors, it must ensure that it consults the right people, rather than solely relying on an online survey. It should consult expert organizations on the matter to obtain evidence-based data in order to determine the specific needs of the various francophone communities or official language minority communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have 40 seconds left.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Okay.

My last question is for you, Mr. Rémillard. During a previous appearance before the committee, the FAJEF mentioned the need to better define the obligations set out in part VII of the Official Languages Act. Do you think the current draft regulations sufficiently clarify those obligations?

[Rénald Rémillard]

No. I will give some fairly concrete examples.

I know that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

There are only 15 seconds left, so I'll ask for a quick response.

[Rénald Rémillard]

Basically, there are no timelines and a lot of details are needed to properly frame the consultations, among other things.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Ms. Mingarelli.

Mr. Beaulieu, you now have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentleman of the FCCF, in your brief, you say that the cultural sector relies heavily on funding from Canadian Heritage and, as was said earlier, there's limited access to programs from other departments. Is this still the case? Have you noticed any changes?

It's surprising, because in all the debates on the former Bill C‑13, and even before that, in the discussions on the former Bill C‑32, culture was often cited as a means to support the recognition of the minority nature of French in the North American context, even in Quebec. This was included in those bills, and it remained in the implementation provisions, which stipulate that Canadian Heritage may act for the following purpose, among others:

support the development and promotion of francophone culture in Canada, including through the activities of entities for which that Minister is responsible and by ensuring that the Government of Canada’s cultural policies are consistent with the purpose of this Act

So it's surprising that this isn't included in the regulations. It should be quite significant. Among all the cultural organizations in Canada, including the Canada Council for the Arts, there should be an obligation to take positive measures to support culture for francophones outside Quebec.

Do you think this should be in the regulations? Do you have any specific suggestions?

[Gabriel Poliquin]

Again, the regulations are of general application, but they must take into account the asymmetry of French in North America, for example, and the specific needs of each community.

The principle of taking into account the specific needs of each community is already present in the act.

In the draft regulations, as I was saying earlier, what would allow these cultural needs to be taken into account would be the stipulation that, in terms of culture and essential sectors, expert organizations must be consulted and federal institutions must collect evidence, precisely to understand how this cultural asymmetry manifests itself.

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

For each program, we should be able to know what has been allocated to francophones outside Quebec and, ultimately, to francophones in Quebec. Then, there has to be a clear improvement, because it's provided for in the act. The regulations are supposed to go further or, at any rate, clarify the act. That's very interesting.

There's also a lot of talk about the importance of having a definition and clear frameworks for analysis and evaluation. There is one aspect of the federal government's approach to assessing the linguistic vitality of communities—which is, after all, a crucial concept—that I find somewhat worrisome. Initially, the Official Languages Act referred to “the mother tongue”. Later, the focus shifted to “the language used at home”. As French declined, it became the “the first official language spoken”, which greatly broadens the definition and inflates the data. I believe that was in 1991. In 2019, the “potential demand” indicator was added, which inflates the data even further. It even includes people who don't necessarily have a potential demand for services in French or English in Quebec.

When the number of people involved justifies taking action, it forces people to demonstrate that they are as numerous as possible. So, rather than changing the criteria, the federal government changed the indicators to make francophones outside Quebec appear more numerous than they really are. That skews the data a bit, and it makes it possible to say that everything is going well and that the proportion of francophones is increasing.

It would be really important to have precise evaluation criteria. So, rather than playing with the criteria and distorting reality, we should relax the criteria for receiving services in French or accessing justice services in French outside Quebec, get a true picture of the situation, and really not legitimize the government's inaction by slightly distorting that picture. What do you think?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

There are 40 seconds left.

[Manon Henrie-Cadieux]

This brings us back to the objective of the draft regulations and the act, which is to uphold the principle of substantive equality. It's this principle that needs to be explored in depth through a reliable, comprehensive and systematic data profile on the subject. Without this key piece at the centre of the discussion, there will be no sustainable progress.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Rémillard, you said that you had suggestions for more concrete measures regarding access to justice in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

There are 15 seconds left, so again, I'll ask for a quick response. I'm sorry, Mr. Rémillard.

[Rénald Rémillard]

I want to talk about the importance of timelines. When you have consultations, you have to have timelines. The documents must also be made public. We took part in consultations, so I'm still waiting for the results of those consultations. They disappear into a kind of black hole. I would say that the issues of timelines and releasing documents are the two most important factors.

We've already talked about performance indicators, but also about the importance of groups being able to ask the department to hold consultations. When we talk about dialogue, it's not just one way. We can cite very clearly all the times when we have approached government authorities or departments. It's important to have consultations, but we shouldn't always be invited without being able to ask for them. We know what our interests are and what issues are important to us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Rémillard and Mr. Beaulieu.

Colleagues, if we stay on schedule, we have about 22 minutes left for the second round. I ask for your assistance and that of the witnesses to be concise and to stay within the allotted time.

Mr. Gill, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for the FCCF. Thank you for coming to this committee today.

The regulations use vague terms such as “positive measures”, “vitality” and “negative impacts”, but do not define them. From your perspective, does this lack of precision provide sufficient guidance for federal institutions, and would clear definitions improve consistency?

The question is for anyone.

[Gabriel Poliquin]

I will answer in French.

We can look at several examples.

There is a phrase used in subsection 41(7)(b), namely that federal institutions must “mitigat[e] the direct negative impacts that [their] structuring decisions may have on the commitments under subsections (1) to (3).” What does structuring decisions mean? We need to guide the public servant applying the act by defining, for example, the type of decision that falls under the act's purview, without defining them precisely. For example, this would apply when a federal institution creates a new program, cancels a program or changes a funding model. It is to this type of decision that subsection 41(8) of the act would apply, that is to say everything related to dialogue and consultation activities. That's the kind of clarity that can and should be in the regulations.

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Thank you.

Previous witnesses have said that very little progress has been made since Bill C-13 was adopted, and that departmental approaches seem to have remained largely the same. Do you agree with that assertion?