Official Languages Committee on May 26th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

I'd like to welcome everyone to meeting number 35 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f) and the motion adopted on April 21, 2026, we are meeting today to study the draft regulations on the use of French in federally regulated private businesses.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses. We have two representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Alain Dupuis, executive director, and Liane Roy, president.

I welcome you once again. You have five minutes for your opening statement. We will then move on to the questions from the members.

The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Liane Roy, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Committee members, good morning.

Thank you for inviting us to appear to comment on the draft regulations for the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, commonly known as the UFPBA.

My name is Liane Roy. I'm accompanied by Alain Dupuis, the executive director of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA.

You are all familiar with the purpose and objectives of UFPBA. Our purpose today is to highlight the role of UFPBA in supporting the vitality of minority francophone communities. This objective is central to the right to be served in French and to work in that language. The UFPBA also recognizes the diversity of provincial and territorial language regimes and therefore encourages a tailored approach to contribute to the progress toward true equality of French and English across the country.

The draft of the proposed regulations and the accompanying tools set certain guidelines in this regard. However, a number of elements still require improvement.

The criteria used in the draft regulations apply to areas that are recognized as predominantly francophone, but they exclude several regions that have a critical mass of French speakers, as well as communities in rural or remote areas. The same issue arises regarding the minimum employee threshold to designate companies subject to the UFPBA: In Quebec, there must be at least 25 employees, but elsewhere in Canada, there must be at least 100 employees in regions with a strong francophone presence. Since most federally regulated private businesses are small businesses with fewer than 20 employees, such a threshold will therefore exclude a large portion of the targeted businesses and reduce the actual impact of the act.

We recognize that language obligations can have economic impacts on the businesses concerned. However, if we truly want to promote French, fight against assimilation, and support the vitality of francophone communities across the country, we cannot rely solely on the demographic weight of francophones and target only large companies. This cannot be enough. French and francophone communities are part of the identity and DNA of Canada. Therefore, it is appropriate that the businesses serving these communities and benefiting from them assist in preserving and promoting the use of French.

The FCFA therefore proposes a methodology that, although similar to that of Canadian Heritage, is actually designed to achieve a higher level of accuracy. We propose using a more targeted census scale, that being the dissemination area. By combining it with the threshold of 20% potential demand for services in French, it's possible to capture a greater number of areas with a strong francophone presence.

The Acadian community of Chéticamp comes to mind, which is not captured in the methodology proposed by Canadian Heritage, but is captured by the one we propose. As you know, this is a well-established community, mostly on its own territory, which has its own institutions.

Our approach also includes the designation of provincial and territorial capitals, alignment with designations made at the provincial level in Ontario and Manitoba, as well as the use of vitality criteria such as immigration hubs, historic communities, and the presence of francophone institutions.

Other recommendations include, but are not limited to, setting the minimum threshold at 25 employees for the UFPBA to apply in regions with a strong francophone presence; requiring French-language services in the event of an emergency on public transportation; the obligation to provide the Commissioner of Official Languages with a list of private businesses subject to the UFPBA; reviewing the regulations every five years to keep pace with the country's demographic changes; and the non-reversal principle.

The UFPBA is a new act. There is still a lot of work to be done. This means that this regulation is an opportunity to start off on the right foot and to establish the principles recognized by the UFPBA and, by extension, the Official Languages Act.

Thank you. I'm ready to answer your questions along with the FCFA's executive director, Mr. Dupuis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you very much, Ms. Roy. You spoke for exactly five minutes. You set a good example for my colleagues.

We will now move on to the questions from the members.

Colleagues, since we started the meeting a bit late, I'll manage speaking times a bit more strictly to maximize our time.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, can you cut my speaking time short? It's because I want to table the motion I sent you notice of last week so that we can discuss it now. In order for us, as members of Parliament, to do our jobs effectively, I believe it is important that we have access to all the information the government has gathered in the past. That way, we could draw on it should the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Canadian Heritage have overlooked anything.

We have to remember that Ms. Joly, who was Minister of Official Languages in 2021, was tasked with establishing a committee of experts to review the implementation of the new rights and obligations proposed as part of the modernization of the Official Languages Act. It was announced publicly on March 5, 2021.

I'll read the motion and then present my arguments to you.

Here is the notice of motion, dated May 22, 2026, that I filed:

That, whereas the Honourable Mélanie Joly announced on March 5, 2021, the creation of an expert committee tasked with examining the implementation of the new rights and obligations proposed as part of the modernization of the Official Languages Act; Whereas the mandate of this committee was to prepare recommendations regarding possible recourses for workers and consumers, as well as the criteria for recognizing regions with a strong francophone presence outside Quebec; Whereas the committee was also mandated to consult representatives from various accredited unions representing workers and employers in federally regulated businesses, representatives from different levels of government, partners from official language minority communities, as well as leaders of federally regulated businesses; And whereas, despite the importance of this work, no report or official recommendations have been made public to date; The Standing Committee on Official Languages order, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the production of documents and records related to the Expert Advisory Committee aimed at studying the implementation of the new rights and obligations proposed in the modernization of the Official Languages Act, and that these be provided within 15 working days of the adoption of this motion.

One of the partners from linguistic minority communities is the FCFA, among others. It's not written in the motion, but it's an additional point I wanted to provide to you.

I think it's important that we be able to use all the data. My colleague Ms. Chenette often says that the government has data and that we should draw inspiration from it.

The announcement was made by Mr. Trudeau's government, while Ms. Joly was responsible for official languages. In fact, she then held the title of Minister of Official Languages, unlike the current title of Minister Responsible for Official Languages. I think that at that time, people were more sensitive to the official languages issue.

I have here the press release announcing the creation of this expert committee. If we want to do our job as parliamentarians properly, I think the least we can do is have that data. We might be able to draw inspiration from it. Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage may have drawn inspiration from it to prepare the draft of the proposed regulations for the UFPBA, but they may not have, and they may have overlooked certain things. As I often say, “You cannot be too careful”. I think it would be important for us to have that data so we can work with it and decide what we can do. It would serve the cause of Canada's two official languages even better, in a context where we are reviewing the regulations related to the second part of the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

I invite all the members around the table to agree to my request and to ensure that the officials can submit this report outlining the results within 15 business days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

I have the names of two members on my speaking list, but before proceeding, I just want to explain to the witnesses what is happening. This may not be the first time they have seen something like this, but I'll explain it so that it's clear for everyone, for those who are here for the first time and those who will be here for the second hour. As soon as a member of parliament proposes a motion, we have to finish up the debate on that subject before we can return to the witnesses. As a result, I'm asking for everyone's patience. We'll see how the debate unfolds. We'll do our best to maximize the time spent with the witnesses, I'm certain of that.

I now give the floor to Mr. Deschênes-Thériault.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In a spirit of collaboration, at the beginning of the session, we unanimously adopted a work plan. We agreed that our top priority would be the study of the regulations implementing the modernized version of the Official Languages Act. We don't have many meetings left during the work period before summer, so I think we should focus on the work we have mutually agreed to prioritize.

At this point, I don't necessarily see the relevance of my colleague Mr. Godin's motion. It concerns a 2021 committee whose report was not necessarily intended to be made public. It was to equip and inform the government. The work has progressed since then. The bill to modernize the act was passed. Three proposed regulations or drafts of proposed regulations have been made public in recent months. The context has also changed.

In reviewing the various regulations we have done in recent months, we heard from a range of experts grounded in the realities of 2026. Today, we have witnesses who have prepared to come and present their point of view to us. These people have travelled to be here. I think that, out of respect for these experts, who will be able to enlighten us in our work, that is what we should focus on.

With that in mind, Mr. Chair, I propose that the debate be adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

That's a dilatory motion.

I therefore ask you to proceed with the vote, Madam Clerk.

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

Mr. Chair, is the vote on adjourning the debate on this motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

That's correct.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

The debate on the motion is therefore adjourned.

We'll return to the witnesses.

I'll give you the floor again, Mr. Godin. You have the floor for six minutes.

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

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, I will have to take some of my speaking time to respond to the arguments my colleague presented earlier. He closed the debate. Unfortunately, in the presence of a majority government, it seems like we're being silenced more and more, and it's very unfortunate. The proposed motion does not disregard the guidelines that were established when we set our work schedule. This is part of the process to ensure that we can contribute even more effectively to the review of the regulations for the UFPBA.

Now, we're taking shortcuts. I just want to remind everyone around the table that the bill received royal assent in June 2023. Now we're talking about shortcuts and saying that we lack time. However, the government has had three years. When it comes to respect and a respectable process in Parliament, I am very disappointed. However, this is only the beginning, and it foreshadows what we will have to go through in the coming months, since the government now has a majority due to defections.

I'll now turn to the witnesses.

Ms. Roy and Mr. Dupuis, hello. Thank you. You are regulars.

I'd like to know your opinion. When we reviewed this matter in 2023, you were very active, present and involved. In the second part of the modernization of the Official Languages Act, regarding the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, a proposal had been put forward by the Bloc Québécois. It had been supported by the Conservatives, who then strengthened it, because, due to a procedural error, the Bloc Québécois had to withdraw its proposal.

Then, at one minute to midnight, on the eve of the vote, the government of Quebec decided to reach an agreement with the Canadian government. Remember that this was during a minority government, and the NDP had clearly indicated that it would vote in favour of the Office québécois de la langue française as the institution responsible for enforcing the French language in federally chartered businesses in Quebec.

My question is simple: Do you think that Jean‑François Roberge, who was the minister responsible for the matter in the Quebec government at the time, did a service to francophones across Canada by reaching an agreement with the federal Liberals?

[Liane Roy]

I don't really have an answer to give you, Mr. Godin.

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

I'm going to ask you another question. With all due respect, I don't mean to put you on the spot. We've already had good discussions about that.

I want to know this: to promote the cause of French across Canada, would it have been easier to require all federally regulated businesses in Quebec to be under the responsibility of the Office québécois de la langue française?

Is it the same answer?

[Alain Dupuis, Executive Director, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

With all due respect, I think it's up to Quebeckers to decide. We represent francophones outside Quebec. If you have a question concerning our communities and the impact of the UFPBA, we'll be happy to answer it.

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

You'd be good in politics.

[Alain Dupuis]

We don't represent Quebeckers, unfortunately.

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

I understand. Unfortunately, Quebeckers did not decide that. It was a Quebec government minister who imposed it, and that's sad. Quebeckers will realize it later, but there are major consequences, in my opinion.

Let's get straight to the point.

In your opening statement, you mentioned that there were things that could be improved in the draft UFPBA regulations. There is, among other things, the absurdity concerning the regions that are not covered. You've clearly demonstrated it. You spoke about the number of employees.

What do you think would be the best rule to determine which regions are eligible? You talked about capitals and schools.

Let's take Halifax, for example. The city of Halifax is not even considered. Federally regulated businesses located in Halifax will not even be required to work in French.

You mentioned another town or village in New Brunswick, that being Chéticamp.

[Liane Roy]

It's in Nova Scotia.

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

Yes, sorry, it's in Nova Scotia.

In Chéticamp, from what I understand, French is the main language used, but statistically, the numbers do not allow it to qualify.

What do you think would be the best figures and the best criteria to ensure the growth of French everywhere in Canada?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have 55 seconds left, Mr. Godin.

[Liane Roy]

Mr. Godin, for our part, we propose using the dissemination area. As you know, at Statistics Canada, there are different ways to count and collect data. We suggest using the dissemination area, which includes, among other things, between 400 and 700 inhabitants. It's a much smaller scale than the one proposed by Canadian Heritage, which is the census tract and includes from 2,500 to 7,500 inhabitants.

In our opinion, the dissemination area helps to highlight the places where francophones are located more clearly. The minority must be dealt with using different criteria than the ones used for the majority. You can use capitals, too. However, to take all of Canada into account, as you will see in our report, the dissemination area allows for a more detailed geospatial analysis. Marketing businesses use it precisely to be much more accurate in targeting consumers—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Ms. Roy, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but Mr. Godin's speaking time is up.

I now give the floor to Mr. d'Entremont for six minutes.

[Chris d'Entremont, Liberal, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Since we're talking about Nova Scotia, I'll continue to talk about Nova Scotia. I would like to thank my friend Mr. Godin for highlighting Nova Scotia.

When you look at the regions of Chéticamp, Argyle and Clare, you see that they are small places with not many services. What positive changes will the new regulations bring? What difference will they make in our regions? What could we change in these regulations to ensure that they will make a difference in our regions?

[Liane Roy]

Thank you for the question, Mr. d'Entremont. It will allow me to finish what I wanted to say.

Regarding the dissemination area, as we mentioned, it'll really help to better calculate where francophones are located and to take into account more rural or remote regions where there is a concentration of francophones. That's what's important. We'll then be able to ensure that people are served in their language and that they can also work in French. We also see, in the case of francophone immigration, how important it is to offer services and job opportunities in French.

When consulting our report, you'll see that on the map, there are clusters with a strong francophone presence across the country, but they aren't calculated quite the same way as Canadian Heritage calculates it.

The main problem, as you know, since you are from Nova Scotia, is that French speakers are scattered everywhere. It's kind of the same thing for Toronto, which is also given as an example. Toronto is a city, and it is not listed anywhere here, even though francophones also live there; it is the city with the most francophones in Canada, but they do not all live in the same neighbourhood. That's why we need to find other ways to count francophones, and that's why we are also suggesting the idea of including provincial and territorial capitals.

[Chris d'Entremont, Liberal, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

I have seen this in my 20 years in politics. Services are proposed for regions with a strong francophone presence. The services are not necessarily there.

For example, in Chéticamp, there are no government services. People need to go to Port Hawkesbury. It's the same thing in southwestern Nova Scotia, in Argyle: government services are in Yarmouth.

It's almost the same now for banks or credit unions. They're not in our regions; they're now in the anglophone centres.

How can we work with these organizations and businesses to ensure they have services in French?