Official Languages Committee on March 10th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Colleagues, I call the meeting back to order.

Welcome again to meeting number 24 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We'll now begin the second part of the meeting.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses. From the Fédération culturelle canadienne‑française, we're joined by video conference by Nancy Juneau, chair; Manon Henrie‑Cadieux, director of strategy and government relations; and Gabriel Poliquin, legal adviser.

Welcome, all three of you.

From the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc., we're joined by video conference by Rénald Rémillard, executive director. Welcome.

Each organization will have five minutes to deliver opening remarks. We'll then open the floor to questions from the members of Parliament.

Ms. Juneau, you have the floor.

[Nancy Juneau, Chair, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and committee members, I'm the proud chair of the Fédération culturelle canadienne‑française, or FCCF. As you heard, I'm joined by Manon Henrie‑Cadieux, our strategic director of government relations, and Gabriel Poliquin, a lawyer specializing in minority language rights.

The FCCF has been the voice of the arts and culture sector in francophone and Acadian minority communities for nearly 50 years. Our network includes 22 national, provincial and territorial organizations. Through these groups, we represent an ecosystem of over 300 organizations across the country.

Our goal today is to contribute to your discussions on the perspective of the arts and culture sector. First, as a result of the legislator's contribution, the modernization of the Official Languages Act in 2023 formally recognized our sector as essential to the development and vitality of official language minority communities.

The FCCF's position is clear. The Treasury Board Secretariat's draft regulations for part VII must be reviewed to ensure that they reflect the intent of the legislator in modernizing the Official Languages Act.

Regulations inherently serve to provide guidelines for the implementation of legislation and to spell out the procedures for its enforcement. However, the current draft regulations provide so little clarity around how federal institutions must fulfill the obligations that they inevitably run counter to the intent of the legislator, who wished to strengthen these obligations.

The FCCF would like to draw your attention today to two recommendations for amendments to the draft regulations for part VII. I'll ask Manon Henrie‑Cadieux to outline these recommendations.

[Manon Henrie-Cadieux, Director, Strategy and government relations, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française]

Thank you, Ms. Juneau.

Mr. Chair and committee members, we first recommend that the regulations set out the procedures for taking positive measures, particularly when it comes to the federal institutions' obligation to carry out analyses related to their mandate.

We can see that the draft regulations lack a great deal of clarity in terms of how the institutions should carry out these analyses. These analyses seek to base their positive measures, for example, and to the extent possible, on research and evidence‑based findings. We're particularly concerned about this issue, given the weakness of the current data available.

Our extensive experience has taught us that the regulations must specify two things. First, they should state that the relevant data available to federal institutions must be shared with official language minority communities, or OLMCs, at an early stage of the analyses. Second, they should point out that the federal institutions must contribute to data production if the data doesn't exist. This could mean producing the data themselves, or helping OLMC representatives to generate it, for example by funding research activities.

We also recommend that the regulations expand on their principles of procedural fairness when it comes to the procedures for carrying out the required dialogue and consultation activities with OLMCs.

The Official Languages Act now recognizes that OLMCs have distinct realities, which give rise to their own unique needs. The regulations for part VII must reflect this recognition and set out an appropriate methodology for carrying out dialogue and consultation activities. A language‑based analysis or the application of a language lens would be appropriate here, particularly given the acknowledged decline of French in North America.

The Treasury Board Secretariat could draw on many models of good consultation practices in order to improve the draft regulations from a procedural fairness standpoint. To cite just one example, we believe that the regulations absolutely must require the federal institutions to justify why and how they have, or haven't, sought input from OLMCs, particularly when taking positive measures and making structuring decisions.

I'll give the floor back to Ms. Juneau.

[Nancy Juneau]

In conclusion, the Fédération culturelle canadienne‑française would like to reiterate that the draft regulations for part VII of the Official Languages Act must return to the Treasury Board Secretariat's drawing board. Instead of providing clear definitions and guidelines, it codifies arbitrariness and produces the opposite effect of the expected outcome of regulations that should reflect the ambition of a strengthened part VII.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Ms. Juneau.

I'll now give you the floor for five minutes, Mr. Rémillard.

[Rénald Rémillard, Executive Director , Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc.]

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Rénald Rémillard. I'm the executive director of the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc., or FAJEF. Justin Kingston, the president of the FAJEF, was unfortunately unable to appear today.

As you may know, the FAJEF's mandate is to promote access to justice in French in all predominantly English‑speaking provinces and territories in Canada.

The FAJEF brings together associations of French‑speaking lawyers from seven provinces: the four western provinces, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The FAJEF members also include francophone advocacy organizations from the three territories, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island. We're also members of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada.

The FAJEF would like to thank you for the invitation today and for the opportunity to comment on the draft regulations.

As a national industry organization working in the justice sector, the FAJEF is concerned about part VII of the Official Languages Act and its implementation. Part VII of the Official Languages Act, specifically subparagraph 41(6)(c)(v), clearly covers and even mentions the justice sector.

Here are four preliminary comments.

First, as a full and active member of the FCFA, the FAJEF shares the concerns raised and supports the suggestions made by the FCFA in its brief on the draft regulations for part VII of the Official Languages Act. This brief was submitted in February 2026.

In our opinion, the draft regulations are largely inadequate for the following three reasons, which the FCFA also identified. These reasons are the lack of clear mechanisms to provide a better framework for the positive measures and negative impacts set out in part VII of the act; the lack of clear details and guidelines for the analyses, the consultations and the collection of evidence‑based findings, including the lack of obligations for the federal institutions to release the analyses and studies to the public; and the lack of evaluation and monitoring mechanisms, such as performance indicators, to measure the achievement of the desired results, meaning substantive equality for francophone minority communities and increased use of French across Canada.

Second, since the coming into force of the new Official Languages Act, other than a significant increase in the number of consultations organized by the federal institutions, the FAJEF has seen little change in the federal government's approach and even less desire to innovate or to integrate a differentiated approach between English‑speaking and French‑speaking minority communities. We're concerned that, without a framework, details and clear directives in the regulations, inertia and the status quo will prevail. Stronger regulations are essential to ensure the full implementation of the new Official Languages Act, particularly part VII.

Third, the draft regulations should specify that language clauses or obligations in federal‑provincial agreements, particularly in the area of legal assistance, must be taken into account at all stages of the negotiation and the renewal of a federal‑provincial agreement. In this case, the presence or absence of language obligations in federal‑provincial agreements can have a significant impact on the right of any accused individuals in Canada to have their criminal trial in the official language of their choice in all Canadian provinces and territories. There should also be a transparent accountability mechanism for federal‑provincial agreements that include language obligations.

Fourth, this is a good opportunity to share our comments and suggestions on the draft regulations for part VII. The FAJEF would like to see the same type of approach used for any future proposed regulations under the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act. Moreover, we're concerned about this legislation and its potential impact on access to justice in French, especially given the key role played by banks in the legal system.

Thank you. I'll be happy to answer your questions. I could certainly give you some fairly concrete suggestions and examples for improving the draft regulations. I can give you suggestions regarding the more practical side later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Rémillard.

We'll now move on to questions from the members.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Rémillard and FCCF representatives, I would like to thank you for joining us for this discussion.

I'm hearing today what we've been hearing since the start of the study from stakeholders who come to speak about the draft regulations. We're hearing that the regulations aren't strong enough, that things aren't defined enough, that we need to put more teeth into them and that we need to go back to the drawing board.

I would like to hear the FCCF's comments, and your comments in particular, Mr. Poliquin. I agree with my colleague. The draft regulations aren't good. However, how can we improve them? Can you give us some concrete elements to include in the draft regulations? You'll be making suggestions. I don't know whether the Treasury Board Secretariat will be as receptive as we are, but that's our problem. We'll do what it takes.

[Gabriel Poliquin, Legal Advisor, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française]

I can give a number of concrete examples. I think that the FCCF is particularly interested in the dialogue and consultation processes.

It's a good example. The Official Languages Act states that, in carrying out its mandate, every federal institution shall do certain things on the basis of analyses. Subsection 41(8) states that the analyses shall be founded, to the extent possible, on the results of dialogue and consultation activities, but also on research and on evidence‑based findings.

That said, an institution doesn't know certain things when it must make a structuring decision. What's a structuring decision? We don't know. Do you engage in a dialogue or a consultation? What's the difference? The draft regulations are currently a step in the right direction. However, quite honestly, they're incomplete. The draft regulations more or less define how a dialogue and a consultation are carried out. Yet they don't tell the public servants responsible for implementing the act whether to organize a dialogue or a consultation, or whether to carry out research. What are evidence‑based findings?

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

So you're suggesting that we define the methods for consultation and dialogue, because the draft regulations are quite vague.

I'll play devil's advocate. On the other side, we've heard people from Treasury Board tell us that too much detail is restrictive. As a legal expert, do you share this opinion?

[Gabriel Poliquin]

That's partly true, absolutely. The provisions can't be too detailed, because these regulations apply to all federal institutions.

You still need to provide a more detailed framework and hence instructions. In the case of current programs, a dialogue may be sufficient. For new programs, or programs slated for termination, the challenges are much greater. Perhaps, in these types of cases, a consultation is necessary.

I'm giving examples, but that isn't necessarily how things happen.

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

You're saying that too much definition will make things too restrictive. Yet the current document is really too broad, vague and permissive.

[Gabriel Poliquin]

That's right. As pointed out by our chair, Ms. Juneau, arbitrariness is codified. The federal institutions can choose which analysis method to use. However, this analysis method may not really be appropriate for the type of decisions made.

In other words, you need to guide officials, but you also need flexibility.

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

Thank you, Mr. Poliquin.

Ms. Juneau, I simply want to repeat your words, which are music to my ears. You started your remarks by saying that the regulations absolutely had to be reviewed. Your earlier remarks largely align with what we've heard in testimonies. Thank you for your comment.

I'll now turn to you, Mr. Rémillard. Speaking of comments and dialogue, you said that you find the consultation process for the part VII regulations helpful for your organization. Is that what you said?

[Rénald Rémillard]

Yes, I said it in the sense that it allows us to be heard. We'll hope and see if the results—

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

The comments and dialogues are there, but there's no obligation or validation by the Treasury Board Secretariat that will be considered. It's a bit annoying, and it applies to all stakeholders.

I saw your openness regarding part II of the Official Languages Act. You're telling us that, later on, you'll be available to help us define the regulations for the part that covers the language of work aspects. Is that correct?

[Rénald Rémillard]

That's correct.

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

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have 15 seconds left.

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

Okay.

My question is for the FCCF: Is there a priority item? There are already comments and dialogues, but is there another indicator? Do you have any comment on this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Time is up. I need a one-sentence answer.

[Manon Henrie-Cadieux]

We need positive measures.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Ms. Henrie‑Cadieux and Mr. Godin.

Ms. Mingarelli, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

My first questions are for the witnesses from the FCCF.

The modernized Official Languages Act explicitly recognizes the central role of culture in the vitality of francophone minority communities. In your opinion, do the draft regulations sufficiently translate this recognition into concrete obligations for federal institutions?

[Manon Henrie-Cadieux]

Thank you very much for that important question.

First of all, I want to emphasize how proud we are, because the new inclusion of the word “culture” in the Official Languages Act is historic. It is a landmark event. I want to acknowledge that this is a sector of development that's essential to the vitality of our communities. Again, we commend legislators for making sure that culture was included, which was very important.

We provided feedback at every stage of the pre-consultation process for drafting the regulations, and we will continue this process in the coming stages. We've clearly indicated that we'd like to see a much stronger preamble added to the draft regulations to reiterate the substance of the commitments made.

In this discussion, we may be told that the act exists and is still in force, but the FCCF has practical experience in this area. Together with Canadian Heritage, the FCCF has co-chaired a collaborative agreement among federal cultural institutions for over 25 years to support the development of francophone minority communities. In 2024, when the agreement was last renewed, we agreed with all signatory institutions to add a preamble that highlights the increased obligations under the modernized act. To date, we've seen the impact of including this preamble on the quality of dialogue with federal institutions.

In this case, we want to similarly highlight this reminder of the legislator's commitment, especially in a context of decline. For now, the draft regulations do not appear to address an emergency situation, but rather seem to dilute the obligations you have worked to strengthen. From a cultural perspective, this is particularly vital.