Official Languages Committee on Nov. 4th, 2025

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I must have misspoken, so I will elaborate on what I meant. What I am trying to say is that, if we want more corporate and government investment in the francophonie, both languages need to be promoted. That’s why I asked the question.

I understand the current rules, but if we want anglophone parents interested in having their children learning French, and want them to continue learning it throughout their entire journey, that seems critical to me. In my case, I used to live in a completely French-speaking environment, but my parents told me I had to learn English. So, I went to Halifax and Thunder Bay when I was young. Through government programs, I was able to work on my English, and I kept it alive afterwards.

On an economic level, we have work to do from coast to coast, as well as in the north of our beautiful country, and both our languages will have an extremely important role to play in it. On that level, there are opportunities to be seized around the world.

I would therefore like to come back to a question we have not really answered yet. Perhaps it has to do more with Canadian Youth for French, but what concrete steps can be undertaken for learning French? How do we take advantage of new technologies, like artificial intelligence and robotics, to help people practise in another language? Are there other possibilities to consider here, keeping in mind that culture is relational and French is too? I don’t want to minimize this, but we have to leave the beaten path if we want to find solutions.

What do you suggest for us, Mr. Morrow?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

I’m sorry, Ms. Chenette, but your time is up. I will let Mr. Morrow answer with a few words.

[Justin Morrow]

There is indeed demand in English-speaking Canada. Anglophone Canadians clearly understand that learning French is important and they want their children to learn it.

As to how to achieve that, technology has a role to play to be sure, but the real answer is to put children in an environment where they are surrounded by French, whether in a francophone community or in Quebec. Technology can be helpful later on, but first they need constant support and an immersive experience.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Ms. Chenette.

This concludes our first panel of witnesses. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank Ms. Williamson and Mr. Morrow.

We will suspend to prepare for the second panel of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Let us resume.

We are continuing our study on the official language education continuum.

I would now like to welcome our second panel of witnesses. During this hour, we welcome, as individuals, Mark C.Power, lawyer, and Darius Bossé, lawyer. You have five minutes for your opening remarks. We will then proceed with a question and answer period with committee members.

Please go ahead.

[Mark Power, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since Mr. Bossé and I have a joint opening statement, perhaps I may have a bit more than five minutes. If not, we are still pleased to be here.

Hello, everyone.

Let's get straight to the point. We have spent some time reviewing the testimony of certain witnesses who have appeared as part of this study, which includes, by reference, evidence gathered during the previous session. Our study has led us to draw three conclusions and make three legal observations. Mr. Bossé and I are lawyers, and no one votes for us.

Our first observation is that a number of witnesses who appeared before your committee called for regulations to be adopted for the implementation of the new Official Languages Act. A number of witnesses said they were anxious to find out what will be in those regulations. The law is clear, though: the Official Languages Act imposes heavy, restrictive and significant obligations, even if there are no regulations, even if the regulations will not be out for a year or two, as some people in the room know, and even if no regulations are adopted for the implementation of the Official Languages Act.

To support that statement, which of course is obvious to lawyers, in the inside-left pocket of the binder we have provided—which is yours to keep—you will find three paragraphs from a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision. You just have to read the last sentence, which is in bold and underlined, at the bottom of the page, to conclude that the Official Languages Act would—I hope—be better if it included one or more regulations, but there is no reason why it would not be implemented even if there are no new regulations.

Our second observation is that a number of the witnesses who appeared before the committee pointed out that education falls under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. They consider that an iron-clad reason that the federal government negotiates just with the provinces, and not with the organizations and institutions that receive funding. We would point out, however, that the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that language is not itself an area of jurisdiction, but rather is ancillary to an existing area of jurisdiction. For example, when the federal government, which of course is responsible for national defence, offers instruction on its military bases, section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies.

Moreover, since the 1970s, the federal government has provided funding for early childhood services and primary, secondary and post-secondary education to support its development. Since the Official Languages Act was overhauled in 2023, the federal government is required to take such positive measures. That exercise of its spending power is also bulletproof. In the same binder, inside the back pocket, you will find what is perhaps the strongest support for that proposal, which is nonetheless nothing out of the ordinary for lawyers.

The third observation, based on the testimony of various witnesses who appeared before the committee, is that federal funding structures, including the channels used to redirect funding in support of the official languages, French in particular, do not work or do not work very well.

Mr. Bossé and I keep up with the news. As you know, or at least I hope you know given your role on this committee, last week at the Collège Nordique, the tiny francophone college in the Northwest Territories, a small number of students were accredited by their territorial government. Among other things, this college offers a two-year diploma program in early childhood education.

Your current study is about the education continuum. This college is a good example of that continuum. It is a francophone post-secondary institution that helps train early childhood educators. If they do their job well, they can help primary and secondary schools. This example alone illustrates the continuum.

As you may have read in the media, assuming that what is reported is true, and I assume that is still the case in Canada, in spite of the overhaul of the Official Languages Act in 2023, funding for that college has decreased, even though they have more people. It doesn't make sense. This flies in the face of what Parliament intended when it enacted the Official Languages Act.

This highlights the fact that there are major problems with the funding structure. That is because a number of colleges and universities are funded every year by what is known as additional funding. Announcing funding during the fiscal year is not a responsible way of managing French-language education. It would be impossible to manage a company that way. The French fact in Canada deserves better, and the act includes a range of tools that have not yet been implemented.

In closing, let me say very quickly that the binder we have provided provides the current version of Canada's Official Languages Act. It is unofficial since our team put together the information in the binder. On the back of the first page, on the left, we outline our methodology. What is in black in the act is from the Official Languages Act that was in effect from 1988 to 2023. What is in green and underlined are items added in Bill C‑13. What is in red and crossed out is what was removed by Bill C‑13. What is in blue and double underlined is what your committee added. What is in orange and crossed out twice is what you removed, and what is in yellow, is what the House of Commons did, in its wisdom, at the very end.

This act is a significant improvement over the pervious one. It provides a broad and restrictive legal framework. The committee should also demand that it be implemented.

Let me conclude with a single example. In the document provided, the page numbers are at the bottom of the page, in the centre. On page 33, which pertains to part VII of the Official Languages Act, you will find the positive measures that must be taken. The only heading on that page is “Potential to take positive measures and negative impacts”. Subsection 41(7) says: “In carrying out its mandate, every federal institution shall, on the basis of analyses…” and subsection 41(7)(b) says “consider the possibilities for avoiding, or at least mitigating, the direct negative impacts that its structuring decisions may have on the commitments under subsections (1) to (3).”

This sentence alone pinpoints the exact problem that Collège Nordique is facing, in spite of the new act. The public service must implement the act in a meaningful way and without delay. The future of French in Canada depends on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you very much, Mr. Power.

We will now move on to the question period with MPs.

Mr. Godin has the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Power and Mr. Bossé.

You are very involved in defending language laws in official language minority communities. We know about your service record and very high batting average, which is close to 1,000—to use a baseball analogy at the end of the World Series. Before the Supreme Court, you have defended the rights of rights holders of official language minority communities. That is commendable, and I wanted to mention that.

Mr. Power, you said that the Official Languages Act sets out obligations.

Are you implying that the government has not upheld the act since 2023 because it says it is waiting for regulations before it becomes more proactive?

What are your thoughts on that, Mr. Power?

[Mark Power]

I don't know.

I don't know if I have sufficient evidence to say the public service or the government are in bad faith right now. What I do know, legally speaking, is that the act came into force immediately on the day of royal assent or the day after, in 2023. It is of course to be expected—and a judge would agree—that the implementation of major legislative changes can take some time.

You will recall that, in the past year or two, there were issues at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Thanks to the work of the committee and the adoption of new linguistic requirements, it was difficult to replace senior executives.

A delay of six months is fine. A year is okay. Two or three years is not okay.

It is clear that the public service in general, specific departments and Treasury Board, which is now ultimately responsible for all of that, have had time to think about it seriously and develop effective structures. If the work has been done, I don't think we have seen the results or the evidence of that yet.

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

Thank you, Mr. Power.

In your second observation, you referred to education and provincial areas of jurisdiction. You said that, according to the Supreme Court, education is not an area of jurisdiction.

Did I understand that correctly?

[Darius Bossé, Lawyer, Power Law, As an Individual]

I meant language. Language is not an area of exclusive jurisdiction.

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

Mr. Bossé or Mr. Power, when the federal government states that the provinces are responsible for education and its role is limited to dealing with the provinces, isn't that an excuse?

In that case, the federal government would not have to provide the necessary funding because the provinces have full jurisdiction over education.

[Darius Bossé]

The federal government could certainly take a different approach.

Legally, there is nothing forcing the federal government to deal with the provinces in the way it does. With its federal spending power, it can take action in provincial areas of jurisdiction as it sees fit. It can even attach conditions to funding transfers.

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

In your third observation, you talked about an absurd situation. I would describe the current situation at Collège Nordique absurd.

In the past few years, the government has been bragging that it has provided billions of dollars for additional tools and has shown its good will and intention. In September, however, it made cuts.

I saw an article in the publication Francopresse. The article says that, in July, the manager of Collège Nordique was in the process of planning for the start of school in September. He had not even heard that budget cuts were coming. He didn't hear about them until September.

How can the government claim that it is in good faith and intends to help educational institutions across Canada protect the French fact?

[Darius Bossé]

One thing is clear. When the previous government decided to modernize the Official Languages Act, its intention was certainly clear. The goal was to improve the Official Languages Act. We should therefore also expect to see some improvement on the ground. Every time we observe the status quo, we should seriously question whether the act is being implemented.

In the case of Collège Nordique, we are not seeing the status quo. Things have gotten worse. The alarm should be sounded. In this case, it is clear that the act has not been upheld.

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

Thank you, Mr. Bossé.

Mr. Power, in your remarks, you said that the act based on Bill C‑13 is significantly better than the previous version. I say that with all due respect.

I have to ask you a very honest question. Mr. Beaulieu and I were members of this committee when we were considering the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

Couldn't the act have been even better than the one in effect now?

In all of my communications, I have always said that we ended up with very little for our efforts and that the government did not show its willingness and intention to serve francophones across Canada well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Power, you have 35 seconds left.

[Mark Power]

The act is significantly better, Mr. Godin, and I say that with all due respect.

Although I am not an MP, I think the most helpful thing the committee can do in the short term is to try to guide or help the public service in its implementation of the act.

Our binder includes the beginning of part VII as it was rewritten. There is no comparison with the previous version.

That said, if more people read it and applied it and if internal tools were developed for the implementation of the act, Collège Nordique would not be in its present situation.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you very much, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony. Thank you also for the tools you have provided us today.

In part VII of the new act, the education continuum has been expanded from early childhood to the post-secondary level. In the past, early childhood and post-secondary education were not specifically included.

We know it took a long time to modernize the Official Languages Act. Some of my colleagues made great contributions, including my predecessor Mr. Arseneault, Mr. Darrell Samson and Ms. Petitpas Taylor, who showed leadership on the file as the responsible minister.

In what way does its modernization, including the expanded education continuum from early childhood to post-secondary education, provide a more secure foundation for federal support for the expanded continuum?

[Darius Bossé]

Once again, we should expect results. Comparing the situation before June 2023 to that after June 2023, the only way one can interpret the legal impact of these provisions, specifically subsection 41(3) on page 31, along with subsection 41(5) on page 32, is that the federal government and the public service should be taking very practical steps to support early childhood and post-secondary education.

I would also point out that this provision is in every colour. There is no black because it was not even in the 1988 Official Languages Act. As a result, with the modernization of the act, there is also a continuum from kindergarten to grade 12.

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

Thank you.

So the modernization process has led to the strengthening of the continuum or strengthening of what the government should be doing to support that continuum.

Our study also includes early childhood. We talk about primary and secondary education, as well as early childhood. Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right to minority-language education, but does not mention primary and secondary education.

The official languages action plan 2023–2028 makes historic investments in the official languages. That has in particular allowed us to increase investments in early childhood because supporting francophone early childhood education was one of the Liberal government's priorities.

That has not always been the case. In its 2013 road map, the previous government had allocated very little funding to early childhood education.

To what extent does the updated act provide better protection for the early childhood sector, knowing that Section 23 of the charter does not necessarily apply to early childhood?

[Mark Power]

I think it goes beyond partisanship. We need funding, increased funding and targeted funding. We need that money to actually get through.

With due respect, one of the premises of your presentation is probably mistaken. The Supreme Court of Canada actually teaches us—I say “us” because I am a Franco-Ontarian—that we are entitled to real equivalency in our schools.

Further, we are entitled to what is required to achieve that objective. The Supreme Court goes so far as to say that it requires a gymnasium. It also requires employees and staff on the ground. If there were not enough classroom teachers in Ottawa where my daughter attended grade school, that would have been very bad.

Those teachers are needed for the implementation of section 23, which is why I was surprised, to put it mildly, to hear that the federal government might reduce funding to colleges and post-secondary institutions that help train the educators needed to pass on the language and culture.

Section 23 also applies to the federal government, not just the provinces. We could discuss the questions that have been raised, but we are waiting for a Federal Court decision that might clarify the issue soon.

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

You are getting ahead of me because my next question was in fact about section 23 of the charter.

In your opinion, even though the charter only mentions primary and secondary education, shouldn't its scope of application be broadened to include early childhood and post-secondary education in particular?