Official Languages Committee on May 28th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve.

Mr. Côté, I know that our technical team has been working with you. Please speak for 10 seconds and we'll do a sound test on our end.

[François Côté]

We believe the draft regulations are a calculated effort by the federal government to encroach on Quebec's political and legal autonomy on language matters by seeking to counter the legal impact of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you Mr. Côté. It's working well.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Beaulieu?

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

I think Mr. Côté has less time because of the technical issues. Can we give him two minutes to wrap up?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

We started with questions from members to give the technical team time to work with Mr. Côté. I gave his organization extra time when I asked Mr. Boucher to speak on behalf of the organization. I did give their organization five minutes, just like the other witness.

I can assure you that I've been fair.

That said, members can ask questions and ask for more details after hearing from witnesses.

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

Perfect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have the floor for six minutes.

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

Mr. Côté, would you like some extra time to quickly wrap up your remarks? If not, I have some questions for you.

[François Côté]

Thank you very much.

I will refrain from commenting on the technical aspects.

Let us now turn to the point I wanted to make.

The draft regulations truly constitute an infringement on Quebec's political and legal jurisdiction regarding the French language. Remember, while the draft regulations may have positive impacts outside Quebec, they disregard Quebec's jurisdiction and the authority granted to the province by the Charter of the French Language, which has already been fully applicable to federally regulated private businesses since 1977 following the adoption of the Charter of the French Language and explicitly and clearly under Bill 96, which explicitly states that the charter applies to federally regulated businesses.

The draft regulations do not fill any legal vacuum in Quebec. They create a legal problem for the sake of petty constitutional politics and to establish a language monitoring regime that is less effective than that provided for by the Charter of the French Language.

Quebec has 370 federally regulated private businesses with 50 or more employees, according to 2025 figures from the Office québécois de la langue française, or OQLF. Of these, more than 350 are properly registered and comply with the OQLF's francization requirements. Only 12 of them are non-compliant. We must therefore not see a problem where none exists. The regime proposed by the draft regulations would apply only to private businesses with 100 or more employees, thereby depriving workers in businesses with 25 to 99 employees of all their language rights in one fell swoop.

We also take issue with the fact that enforcement of the draft regulations will be entrusted to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, a highly respectable institution, but one with no experience in supporting private businesses. The Commissioner of Official Languages oversees the public sector.

However, the OQLF has 49 years of expertise in supporting private businesses. This expertise would be sidelined in favour of a regime that provides for neither monetary penalties nor the power to issue orders, whereas the OQLF does. The regime does not provide for the power to investigate proprio motu, that is, on its own initiative, whereas the OQLF holds such power. We would therefore have to wait for a complaint to be filed, rather than monitoring situations of concern. Unfortunately, in businesses, complaints are simply suppressed, often due to pressure and the habit of switching to English. There is no corrective action because no one dares complain.

Finally, the draft regulations also raise the entire issue of the opt-in or opt-out clause. The current provision is the default application of the draft regulations, unless a business requests an exemption and to be subject to the Charter of the French Language regime. The regulations are, on the surface, intended to respect Quebec's constitutional jurisdiction, but I see that as a smokescreen. Indeed, how many businesses will choose to be exempted from its application? I doubt there will be many.

The draft regulations thus create a legal problem where none existed and prevent Quebec from exercising its own jurisdiction in accordance with the impairment doctrine recognized since the Canadian Western Bank decision. I see this as an attempt by the federal government to encroach on Quebec's language-related jurisdiction. Our official recommendation is to remove Quebec from the scope of the regime set out in the draft regulations, or, at the very least, make it an opt-in regime.

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

I also asked about the powers of Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages. There is no provision for monetary penalties. I was told that the commissioner has order-making powers, but apparently no power to levy penalties. What are your thoughts?

[François Côté]

This power to make orders is a power to make recommendations. These recommendations are followed on a voluntary basis.

However, if they are not followed voluntarily, it will be up to the individual who filed the complaint to go before the Federal Court and sue the company to obtain the desired remedy.

This places the burden of enforcing the law on the shoulders of the individual, the low-level employee or the small-scale customer who is alone against the machinery of government and turns to the commissioner, who, despite all their good will, has very limited powers, and so, ultimately, if the business says it has no interest in following the commissioner's recommendation and continues to act in violation of the regulations, it will be up to the litigant to go to court as an individual.

This is therefore very positive [Inaudible—Editor] regarding access to justice.

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

There is some ambiguity here. You mentioned 350 businesses with 50 or more employees. I believe the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, or UFPBA, is meant to apply to businesses with 25 or more employees. However, there are no francization committees for these smaller businesses.

[François Côté]

That is correct.

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

Unlike Bill 101, there is no mechanism in place to impose committees for the fostering of French—to use the wording in the UFPBA—on employers who need them but are reluctant to comply.

As for the list of employees or federally regulated businesses, that will remain at the minister's discretion. The minister will be the one to negotiate agreements, to decide whether or not Bill 101 applies to federally regulated businesses and to decide whether or not to publish the list of businesses.

It is obvious that there are two competing regimes. I think this will lead to additional costs and efficiency issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Beaulieu, I'm sorry to cut you off, but your time is up.

Colleagues, we'll now move on to our second round of questions. I'm going to be fairly strict with time, because I want us to finish the second round on time.

Before moving on to the next member, I'd like to welcome Ms. Kusie, who is visiting us today.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

I began my career here on Parliament Hill, on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I am very pleased to be back, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

That's great; it's a good sign.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

What's more, I'm from Alberta.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

That's great; it's a good sign for our careers, too.

Let us now move on to the second round of questions.

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

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I have to say I'm not very familiar with the language situation in Quebec, but I do have a question for the representatives of Droits collectifs Québec.

How could federal policies better reflect the language reality in Quebec, where French is the majority language but may still be vulnerable?

[François Côté]

Thank you for that question.

First, there is the federal government's respect for the status of French in Quebec, which is vulnerable and under threat simply because of its geographical location in North America. That's a fact, and it has been recognized since the most recent legislative amendments to the Official Languages Act.

The first step would be to show greater respect for Quebec's autonomy and jurisdiction, and to respect the legislative autonomy and jurisdiction of the Quebec National Assembly regarding the protection of the French language, rather than seeking to create parallel regimes. When it comes to protecting French in Quebec, the Quebec legislature is best positioned to create a tailored language regime.

That said, in matters falling under exclusive federal jurisdiction, namely federal institutions, the modernization of the Official Languages Act is a step that should indeed be welcomed, although its implementation remains questionable. However, when it comes to the private sector and private businesses, my recommendation would be to let the Charter of the French Language do its job. Also, if this solution is unacceptable, you should, at the very least, truly model your federal regime on the regime of the Charter of the French Language. However, this is not currently the case. It is a lesser, watered-down regime that has less power and fewer penalties, and is less efficient and effective.

Consequently, the first solution would be to let Quebec do its job. If you insist on absolutely superimposing your regime over Quebec's, the second solution would be to at least adopt the Quebec regime and ensure it is more effective.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you very much.

I will direct my next question to Mr. Chiasson, since Nova Scotia is a better reflection of our situation in northern Ontario.

What are the main challenges Acadian and francophone communities face in accessing federal services and services from private businesses in French?

[Jules Chiasson]

A lot of work needs to be done when it comes to the offer of service and agencies, both with respect to the active offer and improving available services

As for private businesses, I think there is a lot of work to be done; this needs to be fully developed both here and in your riding. I think this is definitely worth exploring. Some businesses are making efforts, albeit minimally. I think we can encourage and support them. I believe that eventually, there will be positive benefits, both here and in your riding, for the community.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Okay, thank you.

Has the modernization of the act improved the situation on the ground?

[Jules Chiasson]

The modernization of the act has brought some progress, especially with regard to francophone immigration. We still have a long way to go if we truly want to develop and restore the communities to the demographic weight we had in 1971. We're working extremely hard on that front with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and with the province to try to increase the number of francophone immigrants here. There's still work to be done.