Official Languages Committee on Nov. 4th, 2025

[Darius Bossé]

The Federal Court will be looking at this issue very soon.

In this case, the Conseil scolaire francophone provincial de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador shed light on the fact that the federal government wasn't tracking the funds and wasn't too concerned about how the money was being spent.

[Mark Power]

Here is my recommendation. The report the committee will write as a result of this study should propose steps to follow rather than simply asking questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bélanger.

I now give the floor to Ms. Chenette for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, gentlemen. Your lawyerly look at everything that's happening is very informative.

I'll come back to what you just said. In your opinion, since official languages do not fall under provincial jurisdiction, the Government of Canada can intervene directly. You gave the example of the University of Sudbury. You also say that this must be managed by the level closest to the population. I immediately hear my provincial colleagues saying that the provincial level is the level of government closest to the people and that it is therefore up to the provinces to manage this.

I'm not a legal expert. The discussions here don't necessarily concern everything that will affect Treasury Board and all its policies. They're more about education.

Knowing that education is a provincial jurisdiction, isn't there a contradiction between provincial legislation and the Official Languages Act?

This could lead to hours of discussions among lawyers.

You say that the federal government can intervene in education. However, I'm already hearing provinces telling us to watch out because we don't have the right to do that.

We're not going to fix the problem while we're debating legal issues.

[Mark Power]

Madam, in the past, the Government of Canada has been in the habit—perhaps it is still doing so today—of supporting French outside Quebec by sending funds directly to organizations. Health care is a good example.

Of course, health care is an area of provincial jurisdiction, but the Government of Canada has chosen from time to time, and for a long time, to send funds directly to health care providers—that is to say to francophone or majority francophone hospitals—without going through the province.

It does that because francophones, except Acadians, are in a better position to determine the best way to spend those funds to meet their needs. As long as they comply with provincial legislation in this area, of course, and don't discriminate or anything like that, there's no question that it's more effective.

So, even though I am here as a witness, I would like to pass the buck to you. Why wouldn't the Government of Canada, especially in today's economy, spend the money as intelligently as possible, maximizing the chances that the money will get to where it needs to go?

I would remind you that the Official Languages Act, which is still in force, was mainly passed to anticipate economic downturns and not just good times.

The best way to do that is to remove the unnecessary intermediaries. If she were still alive, my mother would say that charity begins at home. It's not really a matter of preventing the province from knowing where the money is going. Ultimately, the province could prohibit it.

That said, it makes no sense to claim that funding is limited and then not implement the winning strategies that have proven successful in terms of the best way to support francophone communities outside Quebec.

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

We've heard from a number of witnesses so far. They came to talk to us about ways in which the federal and provincial governments can spend the funds better and work better together. No one has told us that we should advocate for direct funding.

I understand your legal interpretation, but isn't there a constraint coming from the stakeholders, based on their beliefs and the current culture? That may explain why direct funding is not being used.

We put the question to all the witnesses, and we can see that they didn't tell us that at all.

[Mark Power]

Madam, you're trying to reinvent the wheel. This House of Commons committee, as well as the Senate, have studied this very issue in the past.

This goes back to the 1980s. If people who support the work of the committee want to get those primary sources, we can find them and send them to you. This is not a new issue.

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

In our study on the entire education continuum, from early childhood to post-secondary education, some witnesses also talked about the importance of complementary activities to support French in the communities.

Knowing that language is an area of federal jurisdiction, if you had a magic wand, what would you do to promote the learning and retention of French by means other than direct education?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Please give us a brief answer, as there are only 20 seconds left.

[Darius Bossé]

We touched on the issue of increased funding, for example. That's certainly part of the solution.

It would also be a matter of dealing directly with school boards. The best way to design jurisdictions is to have the federal and provincial governments share them.

Education of the majority is indeed a provincial jurisdiction, but education of the linguistic minority is a jurisdiction that belongs to school boards.

Essentially, section 23 of the charter creates school governments. It's a third level of government with exclusive jurisdiction. They are on a non-exhaustive list from the Supreme Court of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Ms. Chenette.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

We see that most of the grants provided under the official languages support programs are used to support education in English. However, there is a bilateral agreement with Quebec.

Do you think that's necessary?

[Mark Power]

I think the situation in Quebec is different. Unless I'm mistaken, the National Assembly, rightly or wrongly, passed a piece of legislation that limits the ability of Quebec institutions to accept federal funding directly. That also applies to universities.

That's probably the exception to the general principle. That's what Mr. Bossé and I are trying to highlight today.

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

My question was more theoretical.

You say that education is a provincial jurisdiction when it comes to the education of the majority based on the federal approach, but—

[Mark Power]

I think Mr. Bossé emphasized the fact that school boards, whether they are English-speaking in Quebec or French-speaking for francophones and Acadians outside Quebec, have the right to exist. So that level of government is protected. The CAQ government recently found that out.

The bottom line is that the Government of Canada, in exercising its spending power, can do a lot more than it is doing right now.

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

We see that, for example, when grants are given directly to anglophone lobby groups, without going through a whole series of considerations. In my opinion, federal research funds are used more to fund research in Quebec than provincial research funds. So they fund the universities.

Infrastructure grants are mainly provided to anglophone institutions. There don't seem to be any restrictions, but there could be.

A long time ago, Maurice Duplessis—I believe—said that such grants could be given, but that, in this case, he would remove those provided by the province.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Excuse me, Mr. Beaulieu. You have 10 seconds left.

I would ask the witness to provide a brief answer.

[Darius Bossé]

I think what you're saying is that the Quebec government accepts this fund.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Your time is up. I'm sorry.

I give the floor to Mr. Godin for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Power, you said that the action plan for official languages 2023–2028 was a good start.

However, although an additional $1.4 billion has been invested, how do you explain the reduction in federal funding for the French-speaking Collège Nordique?

That is one case among many, but I'm having a hard time understanding the decision. We see that some specific institutions are paying the price.

[Mark Power]

I misspoke or I made a mistake, or both.

What I wanted to point out, and I invite Mr. Bossé to correct me if necessary, is that the action plan must first reflect the current act and the new obligations. Depending on the applicable dates, that may not be the case.

In any event, Mr. Godin, I recommend that we set aside the action plan for a moment because what matters is the act.

In the binder you have in front of you, you will find, at the top of the page marked with a little yellow sticker, the new part VII. It starts on page 31, and it goes on for a number of pages. The new part VII requires the public service to meet all kinds of new requirements, which have been enshrined in the act since 2023. It appears that these requirements have not been met to the letter. The most recent example is the Collège Nordique. We heard about that last week.

Page 31 talks about a commitment to learning in minority language. Page 32 talks about duty and positive measures. It is stated that federal institutions have the duty to do something. It is also stated that these measures shall be concrete and taken with the intention of having a beneficial effect.

Reducing funding in the middle of a fiscal year cannot have been done with the intention of having a beneficial effect. On page 33, in subsection (7), it is stated that negative impacts needed to be considered. It's possible that the Government of Canada, in wanting to help, could actually cause harm. I invite you to look at page 34.

It's—

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

It's an aberration. Anyway, that's what I'm saying.

[Mark Power]

At first glance, that seems to be the case.

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

Okay.

I share your opinion. I think the government is setting itself up for failure. That said, we'll see where this will lead.

You said that 200 federal institutions had to put positive measures in place.

Who in the federal government can compel those 200 institutions and departments to comply with this requirement and promote both official languages?

[Darius Bossé]

It's Treasury Board.