Official Languages Committee on Nov. 4th, 2025

[Mark Power]

Yes, the scope of application should be broadened.

A few years ago, Franco-Albertans had built a case against their provincial government, claiming that section 23 provided a right to certain aspects of post-secondary education in French. The Alberta government defended itself, saying that the case made no sense and that it was so frivolous that it should not even have to defend itself.

The dispute over the foundation for the legal action was decided in favour of Franco-Albertans. The Court of Queen's Bench determined very clearly that section 23 does in fact include obligations for post-secondary training and that they apply to the provinces, as a minimum.

In my opinion, this also clearly applies to the federal government to the extent that it provides funding, since those human resources are needed to implement the right to primary and secondary education. It takes more than bricks and mortar to pass on the language and culture. It takes human resources.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault, you have 40 seconds left.

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

The investments set out in the official languages action plan 2023–2028 are therefore intended to support early childhood education programs in particular.

Collège Éducacentre, colleges in western Canada and in Nova Scotia and in various parts of the country have benefited from that funding. That is consistent with the spirit of the updated Official Languages Act, which seeks to strengthen the continuum by increasing early childhood education training capacity.

[Mark Power]

Yes, but once again the government has to listen, Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault.

In the middle of page 34 of the binder, under “Dialogue and consultation activities”, it says that, “In carrying out this objective, every federal institution shall: gather relevant information; seek the opinions of English and French linguistic minority communities about the positive measures; be prepared to alter those positive measures” after considering their point of view.

Note that it says “federal institutions shall” and not “federal institutions may”.

More money is needed. The recent action plan is a good start, but the money has to be spent wisely, after consulting people on the ground and making adjustments, as in the case of Collège Nordique francophone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault.

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

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

I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

Based on the decision made in British Columbia, you say we don't have to wait for new regulations to implement the Official Languages Act.

The new Official Languages Act includes the principle of asymmetry to some degree, which requires that the French fact in Canada be defended since it is a minority in North America.

The purpose of the act includes advancing the existence of a majority-French society in Quebec where the future of French is assured.

The positive measures, which are also included on page 33 of your binder, pertain to the need to protect and promote French in every province and territory.

As to the official languages action plan 2023–2028, although consultations were held, hardly any groups that defend French participated. I encouraged them to do so, but there was no interest in consulting with groups that defend French in Quebec.

The action plan does not contain a single new measure for French in Quebec. The minister of the day mentioned measures for the teaching of French to anglophones in Quebec, but those were already part of the act and the positive measures. So there is really a lack of political will in this case. The act is not being implemented in that sense.

Do you have any thoughts on that, Mr. Bossé?

[Darius Bossé]

I come to the same conclusion because, not only was the new act strengthened for linguistic minorities, but as you point out, it was also strengthened as regards French in Canada on the whole. The result is the same.

Considering what the federal government did with regard to French in Quebec before June 2023 and what it has done since June 2023, we should expect consistent, positive and practical measures that have an impact on the ground.

To the extent that we are not seeing that on the ground, we must once again wonder whether the federal government is disregarding its own commitment under subsection 42(1) of the act.

[Mark Power]

I'd like to add something, Mr. Beaulieu.

I don't have the dates on hand, but if it's true that the consultations leading to the action plan precede the implementation of the act, I would certainly expect the Government of Canada to consult groups again based on the new framework, even if it means creating a new action plan that would start in 2025 or 2026.

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

I agree with you, especially because, since 2020, the government, ministers and the Governor General of Canada have recognized that the federal government has a responsibility to defend French in Quebec, as well. So I would have expected it to already be included, given that this responsibility was already in the draft legislation.

Could that then pave the way for people in Quebec to launch legal proceedings to ask the federal government to implement the modernized act?

[Darius Bossé]

That's exactly right. That's the very concrete legal consequence of adding subsections 41(2) and 41(5).

That said, all federal institutions—over 200 of them—must take positive measures to support French in Canada.

[Mark Power]

I would add that the action plan covers the period from 2023 to 2028. It makes no sense. We shouldn't wait until 2028 to seriously implement the Official Languages Act as it currently stands. It would probably be illegal to do so. We need a new plan now.

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

Thank you very much. I couldn't agree with you more.

I would also like to ask a question about the federal government's right to spend.

Historically, it has always been more or less the same. The provinces banned the teaching of French, and the federal government did not intervene. Today, at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, meeting after meeting, we see that francophones outside Quebec are treated like second-class citizens.

For example, they are given old, dilapidated anglophone schools. The federal government is sprinkling subsidies to try to make up for that, but it is not succeeding.

Based on what you said in the documents you submitted to the committee, the federal government has the power to make up for these shortcomings in a more significant way.

Would it also have the power to adjust provincial transfers to align funding and further favour francophones outside Quebec?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

There are about 35 seconds left.

[Mark Power]

The short answer is yes.

We would be pleased to provide a more detailed answer when the chair gives us the time to do so. However, the answer is definitely yes, Mr. Beaulieu. There's no grey area.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

I now give the floor to Mr. Bélanger for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a new member of Parliament. Based on the Constitution and the new version of the Official Languages Act, could you explain to me the federal government's role in the education of official language minority communities?

[Darius Bossé]

First, section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for a right to education in the language of the French linguistic minority. During your study, you have heard witnesses say that education is a provincial jurisdiction. Nothing in the charter actually says that section 23 does not apply at the federal level.

However, by adopting the latest amendments to the Official Languages Act in June 2023, Parliament imposed obligations on the federal government with respect to education in the minority language. It also imposed an obligation on it to take positive measures in that regard. Therefore, the federal government must act accordingly.

[Mark Power]

I would add, Mr. Bélanger, that the University of Sudbury, which is located in your riding, is entitled to receive regular, predictable, multi-year, intelligent and transparent funding.

It is also entitled to receive that funding directly, instead of receiving it through Toronto, where a certain percentage may or may not be withheld on the grounds that matching provincial funds may be sought. That is allowed under the Constitution, as Mr. Bossé just explained. I would even go so far as to say that it's required by the new version of the Official Languages Act. That would certainly be the best way to implement the act, especially part VII.

What is certain, Mr. Bélanger, is that things have to change. The status quo since 2023 is, at first glance, illegal under the Official Languages Act.

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

I spoke to a speech therapy teacher at Laurentian University last weekend. She explained a few things to me.

I'd like to understand how federal funding works. According to the figures before me, the federal government spends about $250 million a year to support minority-language education and second-language instruction. However, if I understand correctly, federal funds are sent to the province, and the province then decides how it will use them.

Is that correct?

[Mark Power]

Yes, that's usually the case.

That said, this is all too often the case, even now. That's why Mr. Bossé and I emphasized the fact that the Government of Canada can spend as it wishes. It can give the funds directly to the University of Sudbury or Laurentian University, for example. It can say that these funds are earmarked for speech therapy and that it is out of the question to spend them on something else.

What we're trying to get across—I hope politely enough—is that the public service, the Government of Canada or, at the very least, the President of the Treasury Board must take up more space and ensure that these positive measures or significant sums of money achieve the stated goal, without worrying too much about what the provinces or territories think or worrying about their smokescreens.

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

Would that be a better way to manage federal funds?

[Mark Power]

You don't have to be a businessman, a gifted person or a Ph.D. student in business administration to know that the more intermediaries there are, the more opaque the situation becomes, increasing the likelihood of waste.

[Darius Bossé]

There's even a legal principle that confirms your intuition. It's the principle of subsidiarity. The Supreme Court of Canada has explained that, in general, things are best managed when managed by the level of government that is closest to the population served.

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

If I give someone money to do something, I want to know how it is spent. Why is that not being done?

People say money is lacking. How much more money would be needed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Bélanger, your time is up.

I would ask the witnesses to be brief.