Introduction

On 31 January 2022, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages (the Committee) adopted a motion to undertake a study on the measures the federal government can take to protect and promote French in Canada and in Quebec.

The Committee was resuming a study it had started in the 2^nd Session of the 43^rd Parliament for which it had done a considerable amount of work: 25 witnesses had already been heard. The summer adjournment and subsequent dissolution of Parliament for the 2021 general election brought this work to a halt. The motion of 31 January 2022 states that the Committee would consider the evidence heard and briefs submitted during the previous Parliament so that they could be included in its report to Parliament. The Committee also chose to expand the study by inviting 22 new witnesses to appear for it. The study’s objectives remained the same:

• a) Provide an objective and detailed portrait of the situation of English and French in Quebec, as well as francophone and Acadian communities, based on key linguistic indicators, such as French as the mother tongue, main language spoken at home, language shifts, main language of work, and so on;
• b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the government’s language policies, as well as the current role of federal and provincial laws, with respect to the objective of protecting and promoting French as well as the impact of these policies on provincial legislative measures to protect and promote French (particularly the Charter of the French Language in Quebec); and
• c) Consider possible amendments to the Official Languages Act to harmonize the government’s commitment to protect French with provincial legislation.[1]

The Committee’s original study followed up on the Speech from the Throne of September 2020, in which the federal government recognized that “the situation of French is unique” and that it “therefore has the responsibility to protect and promote French not only outside of Quebec, but also within Quebec.”[2] At the same time, the government committed to strengthening the Official Languages Act by “taking into consideration the unique reality of French.”[3]

This report is based on the evidence heard and briefs received during the 2^nd Session of the 43^rd Parliament and the 1^st Session of the 44^th Parliament. While the first round of evidence includes comments on the publication entitled English and French: Towards a Substantive Equality of Official Languages in Canada, released in February 2021, the second-round addresses Bill C‑32, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. Bill C‑32 was introduced in the House of Commons on 15 June 2021 but died on the Order Paper when the 43^rd Parliament was dissolved.

At the time of writing, a new bill to amend the Official Languages Act – Bill C‑13 – had been introduced in Parliament. In Quebec, the National Assembly was considering Bill 96, An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec. Simply put, the Committee’s report comes at a turning point; both orders of government are preparing to modify parts of their respective language regimes.[4]

The recommendations in this report are intended to improve the federal government’s legislation, administrative measures and support programs to protect and promote French in Canada and Quebec.

Analysis of Statistics on the Status of French in Canada and in Quebec

The Decline of French in Canada and in Quebec

The issue of the decline of French in Canada and Quebec was front and centre in the evidence the Committee gathered. Demographer Patrick Sabourin defined the “decline of French” as follows:

We’re talking about a reduction in the demographic weight of francophones compared to other language groups. As the comparative weight of French diminishes, the less competitive it becomes, demographically speaking, by which I mean that there will be fewer people speaking French, lower demand for services in French, fewer opportunities to work in French, fewer immigrants who have the opportunity or the desire to live alongside francophones, and other similar considerations.[8]

Commenting on the mother tongue statistics for Quebeckers, retired professor Charles Castonguay explained that “things are not any rosier for French in Quebec.”[15] Between 2001 and 2016, “Quebec’s French-speaking majority has plunged at record speed to a record low,”[16] while “English has roughly maintained its weight in Quebec as a mother tongue and increased its weight somewhat in terms of the main home language.”[17]

Professor Castonguay explained that, since the first Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969, “the percentage of Canadians speaking French as their main home language has declined just as rapidly.”[18] As regards the use of French at home by Canadians whose mother tongue is French, Professor Castonguay pointed out that the “assimilation of Canada’s French mother-tongue population to English as their main home language increased steadily from less than 300,000 in 1971 to over 400,000 in 2016.”[19] Furthermore, the French mother-tongue component of Canada’s population plummeted from 29% in 1951 to 21% in 2016.[20] Professor Castonguay argued that this trend is largely the result of the “crushingly superior power of assimilation of English.”[21]

During this same reference period, the adoption of English by Canadians with a mother tongue other than English or French also appears to have disrupted the demographic balance between the two main linguistic groups:

[T]he assimilation of non-official mother-tongue Canadians to English rose from 1.2 million in 1971 to 2.7 million at the last census, whereas their assimilation to French has reached a mere quarter million, a large number of whom derive from Quebec’s selection of immigrants who had adopted French as their main home language abroad before coming to Quebec.[22]

Professor Castonguay concluded that “the overall gain that English draws from assimilation of all kinds in Canada increased from less than 1.5 million persons in 1971 to over three million in 2016.”[23] In contrast, French “remains mired in an overall loss, due to assimilation, in the order of 180,000 at the last census.”[24]

Regarding the minority francophone population, Professor Castonguay said that “the anglicization rate of the French mother tongue population outside Quebec has steadily increased, from 27% in 1971 to 40% in 2016.”[25]

In addition, Professor Castonguay took a closer look at the situation in Montreal:

The most stunning development is on Montreal Island, where French mother tongue youth have become more bilingual than their English counterparts and are now adopting English as the main home language at the rate of 6%.[26]

Professor Marc Termote also commented on the linguistic profile of Montreal. He said that the linguistic changes in the city and its suburbs are the main cause for concern because “that’s where half of Quebec’s population lives.”[27] According to him, the demographic weight of Montrealers whose first language spoken at home is French has declined. Moreover, this decline “is also observed in the rest of the metropolitan area off Montreal Island.”[28]

Different Assessments Depending on the Variable Used

Mr. Jean-Pierre Corbeil, former assistant director of Diversity and Sociocultural Statistics at Statistics Canada, reported that the data on mother tongue or language spoken most often at home are generally used to track the status of French in Quebec. Outside Quebec, mother tongue and first official language spoken are typically used to measure the vitality of French.[29]

As Mr. Corbeil explained, the data on the use of French in the private sphere (mother tongue, language spoken at home and ability to conduct a conversation in French) are very useful, but “language policies, charters and legislation focus on the public sphere.”[30] He expanded on this point:

In this vein, it is very important and useful to collect and publish information on the language of work and on language practices in different areas of public life, such as language of instruction, day care centres, cultural activities, public signage, communications with and services offered to communities, to name a few.[31]

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA) agreed: “[W]hat matters isn’t the language spoken at home, but rather French-speaking Canadians. Of course, we’re talking about 2.7 million people who live part of their daily lives in French.”[32]

However, Professor Castonguay took a different stance. He argued that “the most important factor in preserving a language group is the number of its mother-tongue speakers.”[33] He said that one “absolutely must not underestimate the importance of this critical linguistic indicator.”[34] Likewise, Professor Termote prefers to use the variable of language spoken at home – the language used in the private sphere – because “the language spoken in the home becomes the language of children.”[35] This variable is thus important for studying intergenerational language transmission. Still, Professor Termote noted, “[o]ne of the indices that deserves attention is first official language spoken.”[36] He continued, “[t]he first official language spoken is chosen on the basis of your knowledge, your mother tongue and the language used at home. It’s the language you speak when you leave the house and go out in public.”[37]

Mr. Corbeil pointed out that the conclusion one can draw about the status of French depends on the indicators used. He said that the main issues affecting the vitality of French in Canada need to be considered, including French first-language education, French second-language instruction, the recruitment and integration of francophone immigrants, intergenerational transmission of French, the low fertility rate and the fragile status of French in many regions of Canada.[38]

Regarding Quebec, Mr. Corbeil explained that immigration “is the main driver of population growth and that the vast majority of these immigrants have neither English nor French as their mother tongue.”[39] He also noted that, “of the roughly 180,000 new immigrants in the Montreal area at the last census, more than half spoke another language most often at home.”[40] In the province as a whole, “of the approximately 1.1 million immigrants who were living in Quebec in 2016, 55% reported speaking more than one language at home.”[41]

According to Mr. Corbeil, these data do not necessarily show that French is in decline because of English in Quebec; the reality is more complex.[42] Accordingly, he emphasized the need to use multiple indicators to obtain a more accurate overall portrait of the complicated linguistic dynamic in Quebec. Mr. Corbeil argued that the wide diversity of situations and contexts (different regions, rural and urban areas, etc.) must be taken into account.[43] He cited the example of Statistics Canada projections showing that the use of French at home is declining.[44] While some immigrants continue to speak a third mother tongue most often at home, in Quebec they speak French as a second language.[45] In Mr. Corbeil’s view, this is important because, “in Quebec, 80% of these people speak French as their second, though not as their main, language at home, and 80% of them use French as their main language at work.”[46] Furthermore, over the past 15 years, “the proportion of immigrants tending to adopt French as the main language at home has been growing.”[47] As a result, Mr. Corbeil advised that it is “important to pay attention to the indicators.”[48]

Note that Mr. Corbeil did not imply that French is not vulnerable in Canada and Quebec. However, he is concerned about the analysis used to arrive at this conclusion: “[I]n addition to the information on French as a mother tongue and as the main language used at home, it is important to delve deeper into a number of dynamics and dimensions on the evolution of the situation of French.”[49] Mr. Corbeil believes that certain research questions should be analyzed in more depth to provide a better understanding of the linguistic situation. Regarding Quebec’s linguistic landscape, Mr. Corbeil argued that the following issues need further study: the language of work and of services in Quebec; the underrepresentation of immigrant communities in provincial, regional and local public administrations and in the Crown corporations of the greater Montreal area; and the role of language and educational paths, on the one hand, and of the language used in the public sphere in Quebec, on the other.[50]

As for francophone minority communities, Mr. Corbeil said that more specific analyses are needed to better understand issues such as the transmission of French to children, the retention of language proficiency among children whose second language is French, the problems and barriers that limit the growth, integration and inclusion of francophone immigrants, and the challenges and opportunities in French-language educational paths from preschool to post-secondary education.[51] The Committee would also be interested in findings regarding which languages are used in public spaces.

The Federal Language Regime’s Capacity to Protect and Promote French in Canada and in Quebec

The Federal Language Regime

The Constitution Act, 1867, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act are the foundational legislative documents of the federal language regime.

When the federal government enacted the Official Languages Act, it gave English and French the status of official languages and established a language regime based on individual rights. More precisely, Part IV of the Official Languages Act protects an individual citizen’s right to communicate with Government of Canada offices and to receive services from them in the official language of their choice. Federal institutions have a duty to actively offer services in the individual’s official language of choice. These are the basics of institutional bilingualism. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages offers the following explanation of institutional bilingualism:

The federal government’s approach to official languages is based on the principle of institutional bilingualism. By definition, institutional bilingualism is the capacity of the Canadian government and its institutions to communicate with the public in both official languages.

As outlined in the Official Languages Act, it is the federal government’s responsibility to communicate with and serve Canadian citizens in the official language of their choice. The Canadian government recognizes that it must adjust to the language needs of the public, and that it is not up to citizens to adjust linguistically to the workings of government. Simply put, the Canadian federal government is required to be bilingual, so citizens don’t have to be.[52]

The provision of bilingual federal services has a geographical aspect, in that it is limited to areas where the linguistic minority has a sufficiently significant presence. Unlike in New Brunswick, where all provincial government services are delivered in both official languages everywhere in the province, the linguistic designation of federal offices depends on two key criteria: significant demand and the nature of the office. The Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations determine the linguistic designation of federal offices.[53] These regulations were recently updated.[54] Soon, new factors will need to be considered when determining the linguistic designation of federal offices, including their proximity to official language minority community educational institutions and a more inclusive definition of linguistic minority that accounts for bilingual families and the first official language spoken by immigrants.

Part V of the Official Languages Act concerns the right of federal public servants to work in the official language of their choice. This part also has a geographical dimension, in that a list of bilingual-designated regions for language of work purposes, compiled in 1977, determines the regions in which public servants have the right to communicate orally and in writing with their superiors, receive services from the institution that employs them and have access to software programs and training materials in the official language of their choice. The regions that are designated bilingual are located in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

Under Part VII, federal institutions must take positive measures to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities. This duty will be discussed in more detail later in the report. In addition, the federal government must promote bilingualism among Canadians who wish to learn a second official language. To do so, it enters into bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories to support the delivery of second-language learning programs.

As regards the protection of the rights of linguistic minorities, Mr. Robert Leckey, Dean and Samuel Gale Chair at the Faculty of Law of McGill University, stated that this “is one of the underlying principles that breathe life into our entire Constitution and are recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada.”[55] The country’s highest court has ruled that, “while the language provisions are the result of political compromises, they reflect a broad principle related to the protection of minority rights.”[56]

Finally, Canadian courts have confirmed the quasi-constitutional status of the Official Languages Act and the remedial nature of language rights. They have also set norms and principles for interpreting language rights.

Key Players

Mr. Rodrigue Landry, Professor Emeritus at the Université de Moncton, explained that three key players influence the vitality of a language: the community of intimacy, the civil society of the minority and the state. Of these three, the community of intimacy – whose base unit is the family – is the most important linguistically speaking, because it “guarantees the intergenerational transmission of language and the foundations of individual identity.”[57]

The civil society of the minority “exercises invaluable leadership in creating and maintaining the group’s institutions, its ‘institutional completeness.’”[58] It “acts as an intermediary between members of the minority and the state.”[59] On this point, Mr. Éric Forgues, Executive Director of the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities, noted that the community sector “combat[s] the pressures of assimilation and that thousands of francophones and francophiles are helping to make French a living language.”[60] Community groups resist the “slowly declining” demographic weight of francophone minority communities and help them regain their vitality, including in regions where “their institutions are fragile.”[61]

As for the state, it “supports the linguistic minority’s vitality by legitimizing its existence in society through policies that recognize individual and collective rights. The state delivers programs and services in the language of the minority and may fund vital institutions.”[62] A language law or policy “has an optimal effect on the vitality of the linguistic minority when it promotes the growth of the group’s collective identity and coordinates a synergistic set of concerted measures taken by the three actors essential to its vitality.”[63] The state is responsible for coordinating and creating synergies between the three players.

Views on the Capacity of the Federal Language Regime to Protect and Promote French

The witnesses had different opinions on the capacity of the current federal language regime to protect and promote French in Canada and in Quebec.

Broadly speaking, the Committee heard two views from witnesses. Under the first view, the current federal language regime – a system based mainly on legislative equality of the two official languages, individual rights and collective rights for official language minorities – can protect and promote French, provided that the Official Languages Act is reformed.

The second view advocates a location-based, or territorial approach, oriented primarily around Quebec’s provincial boundaries, and legislative asymmetry in language rights.

Note that substantive equality and legislative asymmetry are not the same. Substantive linguistic equality presupposes that both official languages have the same status under the law but that the implementation of language rights reflects the specific needs and contexts of official language minority communities. This is the norm in Canadian law.[64] Legislative asymmetry implies the creation of separate language regimes in which the languages do not have the same legal status.

Individual-Based Approach

Mr. Érik Labelle Eastaugh, Professor and Director of the International Observatory for Language Rights at the Université de Moncton, acknowledged that English and French are sociologically unequal. However, he remarked that this sociological reality has no basis in law.

According to Professor Labelle Eastaugh, the legislative equality of the two official languages – entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act – does not put French at a disadvantage. On the contrary, it enables francophone communities to flourish despite the sociological disparity between English and French, in part because of the principle of substantive equality.[65]

Moreover, Professor Labelle Eastaugh argued that the case law on language rights takes into account the sociological asymmetry between English and French in Quebec. In the Ford decision, which concerned signage requirements, the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that French is threatened and the role the Quebec government needs to play to protect it.[66] In the Solski case, which concerned “bridging schools” in Quebec, the Supreme Court stated that this provision must be interpreted in light of the specific context of each language community.[67] Furthermore, section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies differently in Quebec because of an explicit exception in the Constitution Act, 1982.[68]

Professor Labelle Eastaugh also pointed out that the Constitution imposes specific duties on both orders of government to protect French: “To wit, subsection 16(3) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms encourages Parliament and the provincial legislatures to pass legislation to advance equality of English and French in Canadian society.”[69] Professor Labelle Eastaugh concluded that, if Parliament wishes to take additional steps to protect and promote French, it can do so under Canada’s existing language regime.

Location-Based Approach

Professor Castonguay took a diametrically opposite position. He said that federal and provincial language policies “are failing to preserve both Canada’s English-French linguistic duality and the French character of Quebec itself.”[70] He believes that, once the first Official Languages Act was implemented in 1969, a conflict between the federal and provincial regimes “was inevitable.”[71] Canada’s individual rights-based approach was incompatible with Quebec’s location-based approach, which aimed for “‘one official and common language.’”[72] Professor Castonguay asserted that the federal language regime clearly should have been location-based:

The more a minority language group is concentrated within a given territory, the better it resists assimilation to the majority language. A language policy aimed at preserving the French-speaking component of Canada’s population should therefore have aimed first and foremost at maintaining and promoting the French character of the province of Quebec.[73]

Professor Castonguay believes that the “most eloquent evidence of the failure of Canada’s language policy is … the anglicization rate of Francophones in Canada’s very capital. It has exactly doubled since Canada’s initial Official Languages Act.”[74] He subsequently said, “[i]t is high time, therefore, to aim Canada’s language policy more squarely at preventing further erosion of Canada’s fading linguistic duality.”[75]

Mr. Guillaume Rousseau, Associate Professor at the Université de Sherbrooke, discussed the academic literature on the two main types of language policies – the personality and territoriality models. The literature shows that, theoretically, “only a territoriality-based approach can guarantee the survival and development of a minority language.”[76] Addressing the Canadian model more specifically, Professor Rousseau said that, if “the goal is strictly to ensure respect for individual rights, then the personality-based approach can be useful.”[77] However, he maintained that, “for the development of the language and its survival through generations, the personality-based approach does not really yield effective results, because the dominant language will systematically take precedence.”[78] Professor Rousseau concluded that, traditionally, “the federal act places a little too much of an emphasis on [individual] language rights”[79] and that its approach “has not been very effective from the socio-demographic standpoint in the 54 years since the adoption of the initial Official Languages Act.”[80]

Mr. François Côté, an author and lawyer at the organization Impératif français, concurred:

In Quebec at least, the French language really needs to be the common language, and not simply an individual entitlement. It’s the territorial model that will enable us truly to defend a collective language spoken by the majority, while it remains a minority within the federation.

We need to make a clean break with the idea of symmetrical bilingualism and espouse asymmetrical bilingualism, with a territorial structure, in keeping with the intentions of Camille Laurin and the Charter of the French Language. It’s the only true way of achieving language protection in Quebec.[81]

The Impact of the Official Languages Act in Quebec

According to Ms. Anne Meggs, former director of research at the Office québécois de la langue française, Part IV of the Official Languages Act, which concerns communications with and services to the public, imposes bilingualism in Quebec.[82] The federal government’s bilingual signage “has a significant effect on the linguistic fabric in Quebec,” making it “impossible for the Quebec government to impose French-only commercial signage.”[83]

In contrast, by comparing the Official Languages Act to Ontario’s French Language Services Act, Ms. Meggs pointed out that the latter does not “try to make Ontario an officially bilingual province;” instead, the goal is “to make sure that francophones have access to services where they live.”[84] She then drew a parallel with the Official Languages Act: “The Official Languages Act does the same thing at federal level, generally speaking. It deals with services provided in federal institutions.”[85]

Professor Landry explained that Part IV of the Official Languages Act has little effect on people’s linguistic identity:

Our research shows that contact with government cannot be distinguished from other types of linguistic contact in the public sphere. Linguistic contacts are statistically unrelated to individual linguistic identity. Instead, they are related to subjective linguistic vitality, by which I mean individuals’ perception of the status and vitality of a language in society. This subjective vitality is only faintly related to the desire to belong to the minority community.

The public services that the federal government provides represent only a very small portion of linguistic experiences in the public sphere. Consequently, the Official Languages Act has little impact on individuals’ language development.[86]

For the witnesses who support legislative asymmetry in language protections, the main problem with the Official Languages Act is Part VII. This part is a relatively recent addition, introduced with the second version of the legislation in 1988. Mr. Robert Laplante, Director of L’Action nationale, claimed that Part VII was designed to undermine Quebec’s language regime: “[O]ne act can be designed to undo another. The thing about that part of the Official Languages Act is that it actively frustrates some of the legitimate language planning aspirations endorsed by the Quebec National Assembly.”[88]

Ms. Meggs asserted that the “most problematic sections of the [Official Languages] Act … are those that create the concept of an English-speaking minority in Canada and propose measures to enhance the vitality and development of that ‘minority.’”[89] Mr. Frédéric Lacroix explained the logic as follows:

Within a framework of symmetry, the Official Languages Act institutes a double majority in Canada in which anglophones form the majority outside Quebec and francophones the majority within Quebec. This double majority is real only if one considers that the linguistic dynamic is determined by provincial borders. However, this is false. The linguistic dynamic is determined by the country to which Quebec belongs, which is Canada.[90]

Proponents of this view believe that the anglophone population in Quebec is not a minority, but rather is part of the Canadian anglophone majority.[91] As a result, they believe this status should be reflected in the English-speaking communities in Quebec.[92] Some witnesses believe current federal funding is creating an imbalance by contributing to an “overfunding of programs”[93] or the “institutional overcompleteness” of Quebec’s English-speaking communities. In their view, federal funding should instead go to protecting and promoting French, or else it might encourage anglicization in Montreal.[94]

Likewise, Ms. Meggs said that the federal language regime “also puts up hurdles for Quebec to defend French outside Quebec” by creating “a false symmetry between French outside Quebec and English inside Quebec.”[95] She illustrated this point with an example: if Quebec “criticizes the closing of a French hospital in another province, it undermines its own leeway in managing its health care system.”[96]

Finally, Ms. Meggs argued that the “false symmetry” created by the federal language regime “also impedes social cohesion in Quebec.”[97]

Some witnesses asserted that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provisions on official language minority education rights have undermined Quebec’s language regime. Ms. Meggs said that legal challenges based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have led to the repeal of “large portions of the original version of the Charter of the French Language. This has limited the Quebec government’s ability to legislate in favour of French.”[98] Similarly, Professor Rousseau pointed out that “various Supreme Court decisions reduced the amount of protection for French in Quebec. As a result, Bill 101, Quebec’s language act, distanced itself from the territorial model and became increasingly personality based.”[99] In his view, there is a causal link between the amendments made to the Charter of the French Language in the wake of these decisions and the decline of French: “By the end of the 1980s, the vitality indices for French had begun to decline again.”[100]

The Location-Based Approach and Minority Francophones

Ms. Meggs admitted that “outside Quebec, the situation of French would likely be even more tenuous without the language provisions of the Canadian Constitution and the support the federal government provides to the provinces for French-language education at all levels and to certain French advocacy groups.”[101]

A location-based approach to protect and promote French in Quebec would not necessarily meet the needs of all francophone minority communities. Professor Rousseau said on four occasions that the federal government “should focus its efforts to promote French in Quebec, as well as in other francophone regions.”[102] In his view, the “regions with a francophone concentration, which have yet to be determined,”[103] should be “the regions bordering Quebec, namely northern New Brunswick, eastern Ontario and Labrador, and perhaps a few others.”[104] Only near the end of his testimony did Professor Rousseau concede that the location-based approach is not appropriate for all francophone minority communities and that the individual-based approach may be justified:

When we aim for that in a western Canadian community, we do not encourage the territoriality approach. On the other hand, from the point of view of respecting individual language rights, it may be entirely justified to propose measures for very isolated francophone communities in western Canada. Both objectives must be taken into account.[105]

These comments were noted by Ms. Tanya Tamilio, President of the Centre communautaire francophone de Sarnia-Lambton in Ontario. In the Sarnia, Ontario, census subdivision, the francophone minority makes up 2.4% of the population. Ms. Tamilio believes that the idea of applying a location-based regime to regions with a strong francophone presence – setting aside the criterion of proximity to Quebec – would mean that the francophone community in her region would have to travel “to the Toronto area, which is about two and a half hours away.”[106] As she explained, this “is not exactly next door.”[107]

Stronger Measures to Protect and Promote French

Additional information

On 17 February 2021, the former minister of Official Languages, the Honourable Mélanie Joly, published a reform proposal entitled English and French: Towards a Substantive Equality of the Official Languages in Canada (the reform proposal). This document laid the foundation for the modernization of the Official Languages Act, the central pillar of the federal language regime. The mandate letter to the new Minister of Official Languages, the Honourable Ginette Petitpas‑Taylor, instructs her to “work to secure the future of the French language in Canada by fully implementing measures outlined in the White Paper, English and French: Towards a Substantive Equality of Official Languages in Canada.”[108]

Also as noted above, some witnesses commented on the ideas in the reform proposal to strengthen federal measures to protect and promote French in Canada and in Quebec. In addition, some of the witnesses who appeared in the 1^st Session of the 44^th Parliament commented on Bill C‑32, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

A new piece of legislation, Bill C‑13, was introduced on 1 March 2022, and the Committee finished its study before the witnesses had the opportunity to comment on it.

Francophone Witnesses’ General Views on the Federal Government’s Modernization Proposals

In general, the representatives of francophone minority communities welcomed the reform proposal. The FCFA stated that the reform proposal “met a number of the communities’ demands and priorities. …[I]t contained 80% of our requests.”[109] Mr. Alexandre Cédric Doucet, President of the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, made the following remarks:

The entire Canadian Francophonie is pleased that, at this time, the federal government is showing a genuine desire to focus on promoting the sustainability of French in Canada. We have every right to hope that Minister Mélanie Joly’s vision will finally, once and for all, chart a course towards real equality.[110]

The Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec likewise stated that it “is pleased with the Government of Canada‘s willingness to modernize the Official Languages Act” and that “all measures seeking to improve the place of French are welcome, and that is why [it] applaud[s] the February white paper.”[111]

Constitutional law expert Mark Power took the opposite view. He did not equivocate, saying that “Bill C‑32, which was introduced last June, isn’t good for French outside Quebec. It’s [not] very good for French in Quebec, and it isn’t very good for Quebec anglophones. An enormous amount of work remains to be done to reform the federal Official Languages Act so that it helps us live in French, whether we live in or outside Quebec.”[112]

According to Ms. Alepin, “[t]he modernization of the Official Languages Act needs to increase support to francophones outside Quebec.”[113] She believes that, in Quebec, “the Official Languages Act is part of the problem, not the solution.”[114] In her opinion, major changes are needed to the federal linguistic regime to “turn things around.”[115] In particular, she suggested that “funding under the Official Languages Act should be overwhelmingly spent on protecting and promoting French language and culture in every English-majority province and territory, and in Quebec,”[116] as well as on “the establishment of a college specializing in Quebec radio and television to ensure that Quebec has enhanced protection and promotion of French on radio, television and the Internet,”[117]  and that “companies under federal jurisdiction be made subject to the provisions of Bill 101.”[118]

Mr. Frédéric Lacroix argued that the foundations of the federal language regime must be changed:

In my view, the principle of personality must be abandoned if we truly want to achieve genuine equality between English and French in Quebec. The Official Languages Act should consider and acknowledge that Quebec is a French-language province. That proposition would have numerous practical consequences.[119]

According to Professor Rousseau, the federal government should “support the enforcement of Bill 101 in private businesses and federal institutions, offer grants to groups promoting French in Quebec, not just English, and introduce more measures to guarantee the right to work in French for federal employees in Quebec and in bordering regions.”[120]

Asked about the time it took to introduce a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act, some witnesses said that it has damaged the language rights and vitality of official language minority communities. Mr. Darius Bossé expressed these concerns as follows:

The day-to-day delays in implementing the modernization of the act obviously caus[e] harm that may at some point become irreparable. Yes, that’s unfortunately the case.[121]

Ms. Angela Cassie, President of the Société franco-manitobaine, said that, given the process leading up to the drafting of Bill C‑32, the government should now move quickly:

The work leading up to Bill C‑32, which we have been waiting for many years, was not done in haste. On the contrary, it is the result of several studies and consultations dating back many years. Any more delays would only further weaken the position of French in our communities. Parliament should therefore begin its work immediately.[122]

Quebec Anglophone Witnesses’ General Views on the Federal Government’s Modernization Proposals and Their Effects

The Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN), which represents English-speaking communities in Quebec, applauded some of the changes set out in the reform proposal. However, the Honourable Marlene Jennings, President of the QCGN, said that some of them amount to “a fundamental shift in the federal commitment to official languages, and the interpretive effects of this shift on Canadian[s’] official language rights are unclear.”[123] Quebec’s anglophone communities therefore find themselves on “new ground.” She further noted that, “at first blush, [some reforms] could imperil the rights of English-speaking Quebeckers down the road.”[124]

The QCGN also expressed disappointment that the reform proposal did not address the specific problems facing English-speaking communities. These include a higher unemployment rate and lower median income than the francophone majority, despite Quebec’s anglophones having high graduation rates.[125] Ms. Jennings pointed out that nearly one in five English-speaking Quebeckers lives below the poverty line.[126] She further noted that, in Quebec, “the major employer is the Government of Quebec. The drawbridge of that château has been pulled up against English-speaking Quebeckers. Barely 1% of the public service of Quebec are English-speakers.”[127] As for the federal public service, in “the federal institutions operating in Quebec that come under the Official Languages Act as it is right now—which is over half of them—English-speaking Quebeckers are under-represented.”[128] The QCGN and its members would like the federal government to take measures to improve the lives of Quebec’s anglophones.[129]

A Test of the Equal Status of the Two Official Languages?

As stated above, the QCGN is concerned about the impacts of some of the legislative changes set out in the federal government’s reform proposal. Professor Leckey made similar comments on the reforms: “It appears that the legislative proposals would represent a fundamental shift in the framework and the purpose of the Official Languages Act.”[130] More specifically, he wondered “whether the proposals would amount to a shift away from the equality of status of both official languages”[131] as stipulated by section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.[132]

The potentially contentious reforms relate to the recognition of provincial and territorial language regimes in the Official Languages Act and to the creation of certain rights for francophones only.

Recognition of the Linguistic Situation in Each Province and Territory

Both the reform proposal and Bill C‑32 proposed to recognize provincial and territorial language regimes, including those of Quebec and New Brunswick and, to some extent, certain provisions in force in Manitoba.

Some observers believe that recognizing provincial and territorial language regimes could cause problems for official language minority communities. As Professor Leckey explained, “the framework of the act is province neutral. The same legal principles apply across the federation.”[133] Considering that language rights “differ from province to province” and that “[s]ome have none,”[134] Professor Leckey raised the following question: “What effect would this have on the interpretation of language rights for official language minorities?”[135] He offered the following thoughts:

Would this principle peg the demands of the federal act to those varying provincial guarantees? Given the act’s symbolic significance, might courts detect in such legislative language a warrant for differential interpretation of the charter’s linguistic guarantees, including section 23?

Does the proposal resile from the Supreme Court’s affirmation that language rights must in all cases be interpreted purposively, consistently with the preservation and development of official language communities in Canada?[136]

As regards New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province, the reform proposal and Bill C‑32 provided for the full implementation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provisions that apply to it (subsections 16(2), 16.1(1), 16.1(2), 17(2) and 18(2)) and aligned the federal Official Languages Act with provincial law. As Professor Landry explained, New Brunswick has created a system in which each linguistic group manages its own institutions. This is an example of cultural autonomy, “adapted to the vitality of each community.”[137]

New Legislative Measures Proposed for Francophones’s Rights

The Protection of French in Canada and in Quebec

Clause 2 of Bill C‑32 amended the preamble to the Official Languages Act in order to expand its scope, in part to specify the federal government’s commitment to protect and promote French given its minority status. According to Professor Leckey, “[t]his would be [a] big first in federal language law.”[138]

Most of the witnesses acknowledged that, even in Quebec, French needs stronger measures to ensure its future vitality. The FCFA stated that this commitment “is not only welcome, but necessary, given the vulnerability of French.”[139] Likewise, representatives of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec said that it is imperative for the federal and provincial governments to take strong, coordinated action to save and promote French in Canada.[140] They said they are “pleased” that the reform proposal “recognizes the decline of French.”[141]

The QCGN acknowledged that French requires special attention and that it is the official language of Quebec. The group’s goal is to support French in Canada and Quebec while advocating for its right to ensure the vitality of Quebec’s anglophone communities.[142] As the Honourable Marlene Jennings explained, “[t]he majority of English-speaking Quebeckers remained in Quebec after the turmoil of the 1970s. We call Quebec home, and we understand our responsibility to learn and use French in the public space.”[143] Moreover, she pointed out that it was anglophone parents who set up the first French immersion programs and that minority community institutions serve all Quebeckers.[144]

The Language of Work and Commerce in Federally Regulated Private Businesses in Quebec and in Regions with a Strong Francophone Presence

The rules governing the use of French as the language of work and commerce in Quebec are authorized by Quebec’s Charter of the French Language. However, the issue of the language of work and commerce in Quebec was raised before the Committee as it relates to federally regulated private businesses.

On 24 November 2020, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion on language of work and language of service in federally regulated businesses in Quebec, which stated that the Charter of the French Language must apply to businesses under federal jurisdiction and called for the Government of Canada to formally commit to working with Quebec to ensure the implementation of that change. On 9 December 2020, six former Quebec premiers co-signed a letter supporting this position.

On 4 November 2021, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution reaffirming that the protection of the French language is essential and that the Charter of the French Language must apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. The resolution reads as follows:

That the National Assembly reaffirm the importance of defending French as the language of work to ensure its survival;

That it recognize that the federal Official Languages Act fails to protect the French language in Quebec;

That it highlight the importance of having the Charter of the French Language apply to federally regulated businesses, including their leaders; and

That the National Assembly also require federal departments and agencies located in Quebec to be subject exclusively to the Charter of the French Language.[145] [Translation]

In the reform proposal and Bill C‑32, the federal government had proposed making federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and those with headquarters in a region with a “strong francophone presence” subject to new language requirements in the Official Languages Act.[146] These provisions were very similar to those of the Charter of the French Language respecting the language of work and commerce, and one of their goals was to ensure French-speaking consumers have the right to communicate with and receive services from these businesses in French. They were also designed to grant these businesses’ employees the right to work in French, which includes the right to be supervised in French, to receive communications and documentation in French and to use French-language work instruments.

In addition, one clause prescribed that federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and regions with a strong francophone presence must foster the use of French in their workplaces and establish a committee to support their senior management with language matters. Finally, like the Charter of the French Language, Bill C‑32 stipulated that federally regulated private businesses cannot treat adversely any employee who does not have a sufficient knowledge of a language other than French or who has made a complaint to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Mr. Côté presented the Committee with three legislative proposals regarding the language obligations of federally regulated private businesses in Quebec. His ideas included amending the Official Languages Act to establish a special regime to protect French in Quebec and the National Capital Region. He said that these amendments were “based on sections 45 and 46 of the Charter of the French Language, thus precluding all forms of linguistic pressure or discrimination in hiring and employment.”[147] This solution appears to be largely what the government decided to do in Bill C‑32.

While federally regulated private businesses in regions with a strong francophone presence would be subject to the Official Languages Act, Bill C‑32 recognized the unique nature of Quebec’s language regime by giving such businesses in that province the option of complying with the Charter of the French Language or the Official Languages Act. In practice, this option would allow businesses that have already begun a francization process to stay under the purview of the Charter of the French Language. Mr. Denis Hamel, Vice President of Workforce Development Policies at the Quebec Council of Employers, reported that, in “more than 80% of cases, federally regulated businesses already comply” with the Charter of the French Language.[148]

The witnesses who commented on the implementation of a language regime in federally regulated private businesses in Quebec noted that some businesses are concerned that they “might eventually be compelled to meet the requirements of both the Official Languages Act and Quebec’s Charter of the French Language.”[149] The Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ) explained: “Applying to two different systems would create ambiguities that are neither desirable nor necessary if we truly wish to improve the use of French in Quebec.”[150]

If federally regulated private businesses in Quebec could choose between the two language regimes, the Office québécois de la langue française would deal with those that choose to comply with the Charter of the French Language. As the FTQ noted, “the Office québécois de la langue française should be the body responsible for enforcing language of work rights in Quebec,” as its expertise “goes back almost 45 years.”[151] The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada would handle linguistic issues for those that choose to comply with the Official Languages Act. With regard to the jurisdiction of the official language watchdogs both at the federal level and in Quebec, Professor Rousseau gave the following statement:

The Office québécois de la langue française possesses the expertise required to interact with private undertakings and coach them through the francization process. The federal Commissioner of Official Languages […] is much more specialized in dealing with public institutions. In the few instances in which the Commissioner attempted to have the [Official Languages Act] enforced in private undertakings like Air Canada, these efforts were only moderately successful.[152] 

Mr. Karl Blackburn, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Quebec Council of Employers, said that “employers fear that statutory or regulatory measures may be introduced, without distinctions being drawn based on the size of businesses, that would increase red tape and be difficult to implement given the lack of resources for that purpose.”[153] Bill C‑32 provided for varying degrees of application of the Official Languages Act depending on the size of the business. The threshold was to be determined by regulation.

Some witnesses asked that only the Charter of the French Language apply to federally regulated private businesses. Mr. Laplante saw the federal government’s proposals as an effort to prevent the full implementation of Quebec’s language regime: “The federal government should not be challenging the Quebec government’s language planning or resistance measures—you can’t call them anything else—to the imposition of and compliance with linguistic obligations in federally regulated businesses.”[154]

The QCGN stated that it recognizes that “French is the official language of work in the province of Quebec and that it is the common language in the public sphere.”[155] Furthermore, the organization’s representatives said that the “overwhelming majority of English Quebeckers are bilingual, can work in French, and want to work” in French.[156] Yet, English speakers in Quebec are concerned that the government’s reform “proposes rights … with respect to French alone,”[157] which could compromise the principle of legislative equality of the two official languages.

Bill C‑32 did not explicitly guarantee Quebec consumers the right to communicate and obtain services in English. However, proposed subsection 45.21(3) stated that consumers may “communicat[e] with or obtai[n] services from the federally regulated private business in English or a language other than French if they wish to do so and the federally regulated private business is able to communicate or provide services in that language.”

As for language of work, Bill C‑32 entrenched the right to work in French in federally regulated private businesses in Quebec, but it provided for new subsection 45.22(3), entitled “Communication in both official languages,” which confirmed that employees’ right to work in French “does not preclude communications and documents from being in both official languages but the use of French shall be at least equivalent to the use of English.”

Lastly, Bill C‑32 proposed to protect existing rights for English-speaking employees of federally regulated private businesses in Quebec. New subsection 45.24(2) stated that employers “shall not treat adversely an employee who occupies or is assigned to a position in one of those workplaces on or before the day on which this subsection comes into force for the sole reason that the employee does not have a sufficient knowledge of French.”

The Case for a Central Agency

A central agency is “[a]n agency that exists to support the Cabinet’s corporate objectives and the collective responsibilities of ministers. The three central agencies are the Privy Council Office, the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board Secretariat.”[158] The Treasury Board already has responsibilities as regards official languages. Its role and responsibilities are listed in Part VIII of the Official Languages Act. Since the start of the process to modernize the Official Languages Act, most stakeholders, including organizations that represent official language minority communities, have asked the federal government to change the way official languages matters are governed. They want a central agency – specifically the Treasury Board – to be made fully responsible for implementing the Official Languages Act.

The reform proposal included some legislative[159] and administrative proposals for official languages governance.[160] Mr. Dupuis, director general of the FCFA, said that the FCFA’s members “were pleased to see that a central agency, the Treasury Board, was appointed to coordinate the official languages policy, to ensure that it is implemented and that there is accountability.”[161] He said it is vital “to ensure that the proposed legislation looks at this horizontal role. It must be entrusted to one single government agency.”[162] The QCGN agreed: “There is a reason for optimism around proposals to strengthen the role of Treasury Board in the coordination of the [Official Languages Act].”[163]

In fact, the reform proposal did not assign overall responsibility for horizontal coordination to the Treasury Board. Instead, it set out the following legislative proposals: “Strengthen and expand the Treasury Board’s powers, notably the power to monitor compliance with Part VII of the Act” by giving it “the necessary resources so that it assumes the role of a central body responsible for ensuring the compliance of federal institutions;”[164] and “Assign the strategic role of horizontal coordination to a single minister.”[165] Subsequently, Bill C‑32 did not meet most stakeholders’ governance expectations. For example, Mr. Power argued that this was a critical flaw of the bill:

The best way to protect French using the Official Languages Act, whether in Ottawa, Vancouver, New Brunswick, Quebec City, Montreal or Lévis, is to make a central agency such as the Treasury Board responsible for administering the act.

Right now, no one is responsible. No one puts his foot down. No one in cabinet pounds the table when necessary. No one is requiring any federal department to adopt a certain type of conduct.

If the Treasury Board becomes responsible for administering the act and compels colleagues and the departments to take action, that will definitely help solve many problems, whether it be signage or the possibility of travelling across Canada in French, whether in Gatineau or Bagotville.[166]

In addition, Mr. Power emphasized that the Treasury Board needs to intervene early:

The government must ensure that the Treasury Board is required to act, that it intervenes far upstream, long before problems arise and without regard to the work done by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, long before a complaint is litigated in Federal Court.[167]

Ms. Lily Crist, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, explained that the authority the Treasury Board can exercise over other federal institutions is precisely what motivates stakeholders to demand that it play a lead role in implementing the Official Languages Act.[168]

New Powers for the Commissioner of Official Languages

The reform proposal and Bill C‑32 included enhanced powers for the Commissioner of Official Languages. As Ms. Sarah Boily, Director General of Official Languages at Canadian Heritage, explained, the amended Official Languages Act was to grant four new powers to the Commissioner:

The Commissioner would have the power, first, to make public the recommendations of the office’s investigation reports; second, to enter into compliance agreements with federal entities in accordance with their wishes to determine how to resolve situations; and, third, to make orders. As you know, orders are approved by federal courts, which, once again, permits a certain type of behaviour to be expected of federal institutions.[169]

The fourth power included in Bill C‑32 related to the Commissioner’s work with federally regulated private businesses that would be subject to the Official Languages Act.

Ms. Crist stated that her organization agreed that the Commissioner should have the power to “impose sanctions and make orders, including authority to impose fines for breaches of language obligations under the act.”[170] Ms. Cassie advocated for the same changes:

That’s why we want the commissioner to have the authority to make orders and impose penalties. We need more teeth. We’ve seen in recent years that the current approach doesn’t work. It doesn’t compel people to act and recognize language rights.[171]

However, Mr. Roger Lepage argued in favour of creating an administrative tribunal:

the OLA should be amended to mandate the establishment of an independent tribunal to adjudicate violations of the OLA and to provide the power to impose remedies and financial penalties. I suggest following the model of human rights tribunals.[172]

Mr. Lepage said that he had “found that citizens file complaints with the Commissioner of Official Languages, and then the commissioner investigates and files a report with recommendations; then there are very few subsequent results.”[173]

There are results only when, subsequently, the commissioner himself or the complainant takes the case to the Federal Court and it is handled at the judicial level.

In my view, the current process lacks teeth. I think the commissioner can continue to have the same powers. However, when he makes a report that the complaint has merit and the respondent is not prepared to resolve the case through negotiations and agreements, the complaint should automatically be filed with an independent tribunal. This would be a Canadian language rights tribunal. It would have the same powers as a human rights tribunal.[174]

Part VII of the Official Languages Act

Part VII of the Official Languages Act sets out the federal government’s commitment to support the development of official language minority communities. As Mr. Forgues explained, Part VII “directly concerns the communities.”[175] It “requires the government to take positive measures to enhance the vitality of the minorities and to assist their development.”[176] Citing legal scholar Michel Doucet, Mr. Forgues reminded the Committee that Part VII has “a remedial character” and “its purpose is not to maintain the status quo but instead to remedy the historic and gradual erosion of the rights of official language minorities.”[177] Professor Landry underscored the importance of Part VII as follows:

[N]o language policy or law has an impact on the vitality of a minority unless it promotes the linguistic and the cultural socialization of its members. In our view, only part VII of the Official Languages Act appears, at least implicitly, to offer that potential.[178]

Given the value of Part VII to these communities, many witnesses called for it to be strengthened.

The Federal Court of Appeal Decision Regarding Part VII

In 2018, the Federal Court of Canada handed down a decision that had a major impact on the interpretation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. In Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)[179] (Gascon decision), a case concerning the language duties of a federal institution when powers are devolved to a province, Justice Gascon ruled that the lack of a definition of “positive measures” meant that any action taken by a federal institution would suffice and that there was no “minimum threshold” that must be met. Furthermore, the complaints that initiated the case were not founded because they concerned specific measures in a context where it was impossible to determine what a positive measure is. Consequently, the Federal Court decision forced the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to revise its criteria for reviewing the complaints it receives under Part VII. As a result, many of them were rendered inadmissible, and the Commissioner was limited in the findings that could be drawn from investigations.[180]

The Making of Regulations Under Part VII of the Official Languages Act

The Gascon decision sparked an urgent call to make regulations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Many stakeholders argued that the very capacity of the Official Languages Act to protect official language minority communities was under threat unless the federal government prescribed the manner in which the duties in Part VII are to be carried out. Professor Landry explained the problem as follows:

From what I understand of the analyses conducted by the legal experts who interpret part VII of the Official Languages Act, considerable work remains to be done to clarify its object and scope. What does it mean to take “positive measures” in order “to enhance the vitality of the minorities,” “to support and assist their development” and “to foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society”? In my view, if these ambitious aims are not reflected in specific and actual objectives regarding community vitality or in clear government responsibilities and commitments, the Official Languages Act may well be important in appearance, given its symbolic character for the country, but have no substantial impact on the actual equality of the two major linguistic communities concerned.[181]

In its reform proposal, the federal government stated that it would, first, make regulations governing the implementation of positive measures by federal institutions and, second, “enact binding policy instruments concerning positive measures.”[182]

The Commissioner of Official Languages appealed the Federal Court decision in Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v. Canada (Employment and Social Development).[183] The resulting Federal Court of Appeal decision was issued on 28 January 2022.

In Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Canada (Employment and Social Development),[184] the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the portion of the trial court’s decision in Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)[185] dealing with Part VII of the Official Languages Act. It ruled that the “trial judge’s interpretation of Part VII essentially renders it meaningless,”[186] departs from the wording of Part VII, “ignores its purpose and gives the regulation a significance that the legislator did not contemplate.”[187]

The Federal Court of Appeal found that the federal government’s commitment in Part VII must be interpreted in light of the purpose of the Act, the principle of minority protection, the principle of advancing the equality of status and use of both official languages, and substantive equality.[188] Furthermore, the decision recognized that Part VII plays a vital role in preventing the erosion of official language minority communities and that this fact must guide the positive measures that federal institutions take.[189] In the Federal Court of Appeal’s view, the duty to take positive measures is ongoing.[190]

As regards the lack of regulations, the Federal Court of Appeal remarked that “the obligation to take positive measures is derived from the OLA [Official Languages Act] itself and it is the manner in which this obligation is to be carried out that the Governor in Council ‘may’ prescribe by regulation.”[191] Moreover, the court wrote, “[t]he obligation to enhance the vitality of linguistic minority communities contemplates concrete actions, recognizable on the basis of the intended purpose, without the need for further specification by way of a regulation.”[192]

Again addressing the issue of regulations, the Federal Court of Appeal stated that “the suggestion that a regulation is required in order for specific measures to be taken would bring the obligation set out in Part VII to a standstill and defeat its purpose rather than contribute to its achievement.”[193]

Finally, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that the courts can require non-compliant federal institutions to take remedial action, which means that they must take measures to remedy the harm done to the official language minority communities affected.[194]

Mr. Mark Power, whose law firm represented the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique throughout this legal battle, said that “the Federal Court of Appeal has rendered an absolutely fantastic judgment promoting the advancement of French in Canada.”[195]

Regarding the making of regulations under Part VII, Mr. Power said that Canadians cannot count on regulations being made. Accordingly, Parliament needs to enshrine clear provisions for interpreting and implementing Part VII in the Official Languages Act itself:

The future of official languages in Canada depends on very clear and precise guidelines being set forth by Parliament. Those guidelines may or may not lead to regulations, but they can’t be contingent on the goodwill of those who exercise executive power. They may never make regulations, as the past 40 years have essentially demonstrated.[196]

The lawyers at Power Law reiterated this argument in their brief, noting that the “gains made at the Court of Appeal remain uncertain,”[197] as the “federal government could try to appeal the Court of Appeal’s ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.”[198] In addition, the decision addressed a specific problem, “a federal-provincial agreement in the area of employment assistance without a robust linguistic clause.”[199] As a result, its application “in other contexts (e.g., its scope in the area of immigration, the contexts in which it requires the adoption of linguistic clauses and their scope, or its usefulness in framing the duty to consult our communities) is a matter of argument.”[200]

Accordingly, the Power Law lawyers maintained that it “is imperative to enshrine the gains from the Court of Appeal’s judgment in a modernized OLA.”[201]

A Stronger Part VII

For a number of years now, official language minority communities and various stakeholders have been calling on the federal government to take four main measures to strengthen Part VII:

• conduct more research to support the development and implementation of public policies;
• hold meaningful consultations with official language minority communities;
• include binding language clauses in bilateral arrangements or agreements with the provinces and territories; and
• improve transparency and accountability practices.

Research to Improve Public Policy on Official Languages

On the research issue, Mr. Forgues pointed out that there is a “community of researchers” that can “assist government and the action it takes.”[202] This community has “extensive expertise in official languages,” and many of them “have contributed to this effort a keen understanding of the factors that influence a community’s linguistic vitality.”[203] Professor Landry made similar comments regarding the importance of language policy research:

Revitalizing a language is an ambitious and complex undertaking. No language can be revitalized without a genuine language plan. This plan is based on an extensive and ongoing research program that guides the precise nature of priority objectives, the implementation of actions designed to achieve them and evaluations verifying their effectiveness.[204]

The Need for Consultations and the Principle of “By and For” Official Language Minority Communities

Multiple witnesses stated that the federal government’s actions on official languages need to be consistent with the “by and for” principle. Mr. Dupuis defined this concept as “the ability of communities to do their own development.”[205] He also argued that such an approach would foster communities’ independence:

This is in keeping with the idea that communities are development partners of the federal government, not just groups to be funded. From this perspective, federal assistance to communities should be used to strengthen community ownership.[206]

Mr. Power explained that the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)[207] further clarified the notion of consultations with official language minority communities. The court stated that federal institutions should “be aware of and attentive to the needs of official language minority communities across the country and to consider the impact that the decisions that they are called upon to take may have on these communities.”[208]

Mr. Forgues asserted that the federal government’s consultations need to foster public participation: “Consultations must not be restricted to francophone professionals. I believe it is dangerous to limit consultations to organizations because an organization, by definition, will always advocate a point of view related to the very purpose of its existence, mission, objectives and so on.”[209] Mr. Forgues acknowledged that “those organizations have developed expertise in their spheres of action”[210] and that this “expertise should not be overlooked.”[211] However, he emphasized that “there has been a tendency to overlook citizen expertise in recent years.”[212] Accordingly, he proposed that the government “encourage the creation of citizen deliberation spaces to determine the needs and priorities of the communities and to propose ways of addressing them, but, more broadly, to determine a society-wide project for the francophonie.”[213] Mr. Forgues added that transparency and accountability need to be considered: “It is important that francophone actors and the Canadian government inform the public of progress that has been made.”[214]

The reform proposal stated that regulations prescribing the manner for carrying out Part VII would affect issues such as stakeholder consultation and the accountability of federal institutions.[215] According to the lawyers at Power Law, more should be done. They called on Parliament to “enshrine the duty to consult set out by the Court of Appeal in the OLA and specify its parameters.”[216] They said that the Official Languages Act and Bill C‑32 “do not enshrine the ‘by and for’ principle and do not provide for a robust consultation mechanism.”[217] On this point, they advised parliamentarians to draw on the wording of Bill C‑11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act, in drafting the next official languages bill:

5.2 (1) The Commission shall consult with English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada when making decisions that could adversely affect them.

Objectives of consultations

(2) When engaging in consultations required by subsection (1), the Commission shall

• (a) gather information to test its policies, decisions and initiatives;
• (b) propose policies, decisions and initiatives that 40 have not been finalized;
• (c) seek the communities’ opinions with regard to the policies, decisions or initiatives that are the subject of the consultations;
• (d) provide them with all relevant information on which those policies, decisions or initiatives are based;
• (e) openly and meaningfully consider those opinions;
• (f) be prepared to alter those policies, decisions or initiatives;
• and
• (g) provide the communities with feedback, both during the consultation process and after a decision has been made.[218]

Support for Minority Community Organizations

The issue of federal support for official language community organizations and institutions came up often in the testimony from official language minority community representatives.

Mr. Daniel Boivin, President of the Fédération des associations de juristes d’expression française de common law, underlined the importance of the federal government’s financial support for associations of francophone lawyers. He expressed the same view as many witnesses before him: multi-year financial support is preferable because one-time or project-based funding does not ensure organizations can continue operating over the long term.

Obviously, this recommendation applies to organizations in other sectors, including the culture sector. Ms. Tamilio also mentioned the need for multi-year funding:

The vitality of the French language is generally part of the mandate of local community organizations and programs, and government programs to promote official languages. The federal government offers grants for core programming, which for us means $30,000 a year to further the development of the French language in a French-speaking minority town. This amount allows us to hire an employee who works 20 hours a week, at non-competitive wages and without benefits.[219]

Organizations such as the one that Ms. Tamilio represents can apply for funding for specific projects. However, this type of funding can cause serious problems for small organizations:

[O]n the community side of things, we receive $30,000 a year. If we want to undertake any projects, we have to request funds for these specific projects. So if we factor in the time required before receiving approval for our funding application and the fact that we have until March 31 to complete the project, we sometimes have six months left to organize a special project for the region’s francophone community.

Why couldn’t the government gather our project ideas together and give us funds from the core programming reserve rather than require us to submit applications for short-term projects? It could simply give us the funds and the means to go into the communities to promote the language.[220]

Support for official language minority community institutions is one of the guiding principles of the reform proposal. This set of legislative and administrative changes essentially commits the federal government to taking various measures to support key sectors such as immigration, the education continuum, school administration, health care, culture, justice and other services, while respecting jurisdiction. These measures include improved consultations, the collection of data on communities and increased accountability.

As Mr. Boivin noted, the renewal of the action plan for official languages is an opportunity to put in place a significant, lasting initiative that ensures the long-term survival of community organizations.[221] It is worth noting that the Action Plan for Official Languages 2018–2023: Investing in Our Future had increased core funding for community organizations.

Intergovernmental Cooperation: Binding Language Clauses

Federal government support for official language minority communities exists in numerous sectors, including several that fall within provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

Subsection 41(2) of the Official Languages Act limits federal government support by stipulating that federal measures taken pursuant to Part VII must respect the jurisdiction and powers of the provinces. In addition, subsection 43(1) provides that the federal government may “encourage and assist provincial governments to support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities generally and, in particular, to offer provincial and municipal services in both English and French and to provide opportunities for members of English or French linguistic minority communities to be educated in their own language” and “encourage and assist provincial governments to provide opportunities for everyone in Canada to learn both English and French.”

Consistent with provincial and federal jurisdiction, the federal government negotiates bilateral arrangements or agreements with the provinces and territories in a number of areas. This practice enables it to fulfill the requirements of Part VII while respecting the other governments’ priorities. Some of these agreements relate to universal programs, while others are specific to official language minority communities.

For many years now, official language minority communities and other stakeholders – including the Committee – have pointed out that the language clauses in these agreements, if any, are too often limited or declaratory. They do not force provincial and territorial governments, which sign these agreements voluntarily, to apply the principle of substantive equality under universal agreements or to precisely comply with the terms of those that concern communities only. The lawyers at Power Law stated plainly that, without “enforceable language clauses, provinces and territories are using these large sums of money without regard for the interests of official language communities”[222] and that, for decades, “their inclusion and quality in provincial/territorial agreements have been haphazard.”[223]

The FCFA argued that strong language clauses are an effective way of strengthening Part VII. Mr. Dupuis explained that these clauses can address the transparency and accountability duties of both levels of government, which is a key issue in bilateral arrangements or agreements concerning transfer payments from the federal government to the provincial and territorial governments:

The federal government transfers a great deal of money for health, education and infrastructure to the provinces and territories. However, we often can’t follow that money and we can’t demonstrate that it has any impact on our communities. We could transfer billions of dollars in infrastructure to the provinces by including a language clause that would require the provinces to consult the minority to find out their infrastructure needs. This would ensure that the provinces and territories take our needs into account when setting their priorities, which directly impact our communities.[224]

The recent ruling in Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Canada (Employment and Social Development Canada)[225] addresses the federal government’s duty to ensure that the language rights of official language minority communities are protected in intergovernmental agreements that devolve authority. The representatives of Power Law explained that the 2008 agreement for the provision of employment assistance services between the federal and British Columbia governments included language clauses. However, none “allowed the federal government to intervene if the actions of the province harmed the francophone community, despite the requests of the francophone community.”[226] The fears of British Columbia francophones were realized when the province adopted a single-window model. As a result, French-language services were substantially reduced, and “most francophone organizations [that were providing these services] los[t] their funding.”[227]

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the federal government had not consulted the francophone community and therefore had not fulfilled its responsibility to enhance the vitality of francophones in British Columbia or to “counte[r] or mitigat[e] the effects of measures that could have a negative impact, such as the obligation to include a linguistic clause in the federal provincial agreement that would allow the federal government to intervene if the province does not act in a manner that would support the vitality of the French-speaking community or acted in a manner that adversely affects it.”[228] Accordingly, the Federal Court of Appeal “ordered the federal government to terminate or renegotiate the agreement to include a linguistic clause in order to, ‘to the extent possible, restore the network of employment assistance services with the participation of the Francophone organizations based on the model that existed before the signing of the Agreement, while taking into account the current needs of B.C.’s French linguistic minority community.’”[229]

The Power Law lawyers explained that “the Court of Appeal’s decision requires that federal institutions consult official language minority communities and include linguistic clauses in federal-provincial/territorial agreements that enable them to ensure that the provinces and territories do not act in a manner that hinders the vitality of minority language communities.”[230]

Yet, as noted above, the decision concerned a specific case, and the gains remain precarious. Accordingly, the representatives of Power Law asserted that “Parliament should include in the modernized OLA an obligation to include robust linguistic clauses in federal-provincial/territorial agreements.”[231] As they pointed out, “[n]either the OLA nor Bill C‑32 require the inclusion of linguistic clauses in federal-provincial/territorial agreements.”[232] Bill C-13 does not have any provisions that would require linguistic clauses to be included in agreements signed between the federal government and the provinces and territories. According to lawyer Roger Lepage, the fact that linguistic clauses were not included when the government negotiated daycare agreements was a missed opportunity for the federal government.[233]

Supporting the Vitality of French Through Francophone Immigration

Francophone Immigration in Francophone Minority Communities

Immigration is one of the areas where government action is viewed as critical to the future of Canada’s francophone communities. As a result, for many years now, francophone minority communities have been working with the federal government to strengthen their capacity to recruit, take in and integrate francophone immigrants. In addition to enriching communities with their unique cultures, knowledge and experience, francophone immigrants help bring the demographic weight of Canada’s francophones into relative balance with that of the anglophone majority.

The government has been taking measures to promote francophone immigration in francophone minority communities at every stage in the immigration process. In March 2019, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) launched a strategy entitled Meeting our Objectives: Francophone Immigration Strategy, which set a target of 4.4% of immigrants outside Quebec being francophones by 2023. Mr. Glen Linder, Director General of International and Intergovernmental Relations, reported that “IRCC has since launched new initiatives to reach that 4.4% target, notably by awarding additional points to French-speaking and bilingual applicants in the express entry system, which [is used] to manage permanent residence applications from skilled workers outside Quebec.”[234] Mr. Linder continued, “[t]he strategy has yielded positive results. Admissions have constantly increased from less than 2% in 2017 to 3.6% in 2020.”[235] Because of the COVID‑19 pandemic, the share of francophone admissions fell in 2021 to 2%.[236]

During the pandemic, IRCC implemented a number of measures, including a pathway from temporary to permanent residence. Mr. Linder described the results: “By the time the pathway closed on November 5, 2021, the department had received 2,300 applications in the two components reserved for French-speaking essential workers and approximately 4,700 applications in the component reserved for recently graduated francophone international students.”[237]

Ms. Corinne Prince, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of Settlement and Integration, explained that IRCC is working closely with francophone minority communities. For example, she said, “[l]ast year we increased the number of francophone service providers outside of Quebec from 50 to 80 and invested many more millions of dollars in francophone services.”[238] Moreover, a few weeks earlier, Minister, Fraser, “added nine additional resettlement agencies to assist with the incoming Afghan refugees. We doubled the number of francophone resettlement agencies in that announcement, adding agencies in Bathurst and Edmonton as well as in Grande Prairie and Fort McMurray.”[239]

Despite the efforts of IRCC and francophone communities, the Government of Canada is not recruiting, taking in or, especially, retaining enough francophone immigrants to boost the French-speaking population outside Quebec or even slow its decline. Ms. Cassie described the situation in Manitoba as follows:

From 2010 to 2019, more than 4,800 immigrants arriving in Manitoba were able to communicate in French. Despite our efforts, and although we have an initiative to attract them, we took in only 301 immigrants and 109 refugees in 2020‑2021.

So we have the capacity and the will to take them in, but approvals are lagging. We really need to step up the process and set even bolder targets.[240]

Mr. Martin Normand, Director of Strategic Research and International Relations at the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne), raised an issue with recruiting international students to French-language post-secondary institutions in a minority setting:

Our establishments, or I should say our network of establishments, have been promoting study programs in French outside of Quebec at francophone establishments across Canada. The problem is, IRCC will often use intent to remain in Canada after one’s studies as a reason to refuse a study permit application.[241]

A Statistics Canada study found that, in some provinces, the number of French-speaking immigrants would need to triple to maintain the relative demographic weight of the francophone population.[242] As Ms. Crist noted, the most recent study on francophone immigration by the Commissioner of Official Languages estimated that “failure to reach that target has resulted in a shortfall of approximately 76,000 francophone immigrants in our communities. That figure could represent the entire francophone population of my province.”[243]

Mr. Termote argued that francophone immigration is not a panacea for the demographic troubles of minority francophones. He believes that “having francophones or francophiles immigrate to areas other than Quebec could solve the problem with respect to the future of French in some regions like Manitoba.”[244] However, he pointed out that, “even if the effort to have a few more francophones and francophiles immigrate to communities outside Quebec [were successful, it] would not do anything to reverse the trend observed in the rest of Canada.”[245] Professor Castonguay shares this view. He said, “[f]rancophone immigration to Quebec definitely has the potential to expand and persist, to contribute permanently to French in Quebec and thus in Canada.”[246] However, outside of Quebec, francophone immigration does not have the desired effect, particularly due to the language transfer toward English that happens among migrants from Quebec and international immigrants: “[N]ative Quebecers who migrate outside Quebec, in the same way international immigrants migrate to other provinces, become anglicized, starting in the first generation, at virtually the same rate as their host francophone society.”[247] The matter of language transfer is addressed in greater detail later in the report.

The Official Languages Act reform proposal cites immigration as an area for priority action. The federal government plans to add to the Official Languages Act a duty to adopt a francophone immigration policy and to include an immigration component in the next government-wide official languages strategy. Mr. Dupuis of the FCFA, who testified before Bill C‑32 was introduced, said he was pleased by this commitment. He suggested that the francophone immigration policy should be created in cooperation with communities. In his view, a made-to-measure policy developed “with, by and for” francophones would result in a superior approach to francophone immigration:

The government’s approach has always been to establish an immigration program first and to add a francophone component afterwards. Going forward, it will be possible to give greater consideration to recruitment, promotion, international students and guidance to help temporary foreign workers become permanent residents.

This is an opportunity for a holistic approach to francophone immigration. The policy announcement and similar new tools make us very hopeful.[248]

In addition, the FCFA stated that the federal government needs to take “bold action on francophone immigration and on support for the social and cultural vitality of the francophone communities.”[249] Consequently, the organization called on the government to set a “new catch-up and repair target [a progressive target for francophone immigration of 12% by 2024 and 20% by 2036] to ensure that the demographic weight of our communities will increase in the future, rather than stay the same or decline.”[250]

The lawyers at Power Law, who appeared after Bill C‑32 was introduced in the House of Commons, commented in more detail on the proposal to require a francophone immigration policy:

Bill C-32 only requires the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to adopt a policy on francophone immigration, whatever that policy may be, which has already been in place for years, and not the policy needed to ensure the survival of francophone communities. Rather, the modernized OLA must compel the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to adopt a policy whose objective is to restore the demographic weight of French speakers.[251]

One way to improve the federal government’s francophone immigration programs may be to conduct additional research. Ms. Mariève Forest, a sociologist and Visiting Professor at the University of Ottawa, told the Committee about “the importance of systematically viewing immigration from a longitudinal perspective, meaning a perspective that considers the dynamics of language transfer.”[252] Professor Forest pointed out that “language retention among immigrants has received little attention.”[253] Yet demographic projections show that, if language retention rates are the same for francophones born in Canada as those born abroad, the work that Franco-Ontarian communities do to take in immigrants is not enough to “greatly influence the demographic curve.”[254] Professor Forest said that more research is needed on language practices, such as the factors that limit language transfer among immigrants, with a view to protecting French in Canada.[255]

Finally, Professor Landry highlighted a problem with francophone immigration in minority communities: “[I]mmigrants go to big cities, but that’s where assimilation is strongest.” In his view, therefore, “[w]e can’t expect immigrants who undergo francization as a result of contact with other francophones to be any more resistant to assimilation than old-stock francophones.”[256]

As regards language transfer for immigrants, Professor Castonguay explained that, “despite the fact that the Francotrope component of the Allophone population outside Quebec has risen, by 2016, to over one million, Allophone shift to French has remained insignificant.”[257] Professor Castonguay defines francotropes as being “[a]llophones whose mother tongue is either a Romance language (save Italian) or a language spoken in former French colonies or protectorates.”[258] He added, “[b]ecause of their linguistic or historical affinities with French, Francotropes – in Quebec, at least – are more prone to assimilate to French than to English.”[259] He also made the following observation:

It is worthy of note, furthermore, that among the 14,300 cases of net shift from Other languages to French in 2016 … only 592 were reported by Allophones born in Canada. English is thus, to all intents and purposes, the exclusive language of assimilation of Canadian-born Allophones outside Quebec. Moreover, the major part of the few cases of shift to French reported by Allophone immigrants outside Quebec, Francotropes included, was, in all likelihood, previously completed abroad, before immigrating, as we have already seen to be the case in Quebec.[260]

Professor Castonguay also explained that “[a] steady stream of Francophone newcomers can help keep numbers up. But once established in the rest of Canada, Francophones from Quebec shift to English to almost the same degree as Francophones born outside Quebec.”[261] Therefore, he concluded that “[t]he contribution of Francophone immigrants from abroad, actively fostered by Ottawa since 2003, proves likewise ephemeral,”[262] and that “[f]or the same reasons, the more recent policy of promoting Francophone – or, for that matter, Francotrope – immigration towards the rest of Canada, in order to bolster the flagging demography of the Francophone minorities outside Quebec, appears equally ill-advised.”[263] He believes that, “[a]side from the Acadian part of New Brunswick and certain Ontario counties bordering on Quebec, provinces other than Quebec simply do not provide most Francophone or Francotrope newcomers with a linguistic environment in which to thrive in French.”[264]

Francophone Immigration in Quebec

Mr. Linder explained that the main goals of the Canada–Québec Accord relating to Immigration and the Temporary Admission of Aliens (the Canada–Quebec Immigration Accord) are to “preserve Quebec’s demographic weight within Canada and to integrate immigrants to the province in a manner that respects the distinct identity of the province.”[265]

As regards the immigration targets, Mr. Linder gave the following explanation: “As a result of the accord, Quebec is the only province that publishes its immigration objectives and targets every year.”[266] However, the federal government must “establish the total annual number of immigrants for the country as a whole, taking into account Quebec’s position on the number of immigrants it wishes to accept in all classes.”[267]

In addition, the Canada–Quebec Immigration Accord gives the Quebec government other responsibilities for immigrant selection:

[E]stablishing its own economic immigrant selection criteria, setting and assessing financial criteria for sponsoring in the family reunification class, selecting refugees taken in by the government or through collective sponsorship and providing intake and integration services in the province.[268]

With regard to Quebec’s ability to select immigrants, Professor Castonguay confirmed that “Quebec only selects some 60% of its immigrants. The rest – refugees, family reunification – remains under federal jurisdiction.”[269]

As for the federal government’s responsibilities, they can be summarized as follows:

IRCC administers the family reunification program and the protected persons program in Canada. Protected persons are persons whom the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has recognized as refugees in need of Canada’s protection.

The Government of Canada is also responsible for determining the eligibility of all immigration applicants to Canada. Evaluating eligibility includes health, security and criminal checks to determine whether applicants meet statutory requirements for admission to the country.[270]

Many observers see Quebec’s immigration powers as substantial. Even Ms. Meggs conceded, “[t]he Canada-Quebec Accord relating to Immigration is the only document … where the federal government deviates even slightly from the principle of linguistic symmetry,” as it “recognizes the importance of ensuring the integration of immigrants in Québec in a manner that respects the distinct identity of Québec.”[271]

Despite the provisions designed to maintain the francophone character of Quebec, some witnesses maintained that they are insufficient. Ms. Marie‑Anne Alepin, President of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, said that the current distribution of immigration powers between the federal and Quebec governments hampers Quebec’s ability to recruit enough francophone immigrants. She asserted that Quebec needs total control over immigration in the province: “It would be better to control our immigration process and accept more francophones. It’s essential. Not just desirable, but essential.”[272]

Ms. Alepin added that, to the members of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, it is “not so much the number [of immigrants] that’s important but rather the way things are done. Knowledge of the French language is really the most important consideration.”[273]

According to Professor Castonguay, “[t]he preference accorded, since 1978, to prior knowledge of French in Quebec’s selection of its economic immigrants has tended to favour Francotrope immigration.”[274] On that point, he added:

In total, since less than a quarter of Quebec’s immigrants are young enough upon arrival to be durably influenced by the schooling provisions of the Charter, the primary explanation of French’s enhanced power of assimilation among Allophones remains, by far, their growingly Francotrope makeup. Ever new cohorts of mainly Francotrope Allophones gradually swell the percentage of Francotropes among Quebec’s immigrant and native-born Allophone populations alike, and French’s share in their assimilation grows accordingly.”[275]

He again emphasized the importance of francotrope immigration, saying:

Since 2001, 67% of Quebec’s Allophone immigrants have been Francotropes. By 2016, Francotropes already constituted 53% of Quebec’s total Allophone population, 58% of its immigrant Allophone population, and even 38% of its Canadian-born Allophone population. The progress of French’s share of Allophone assimilation has in fact been slowing down since 2001, no doubt because the Francotrope component of the Allophone population is nearing its upper limit.[276]

Mr. Patrick Sabourin shared a similar view:

If this proportion [of language substitutions toward French] has increased over the past few decades, it’s largely due to an increase in francophone immigration. The status and appeal of French in Quebec have made little headway, and language substitutions towards French have been levelling out. The lower appeal of French in Quebec has thus been concealed by two phenomena, the strong propensity of anglophones to leave Quebec, which increased the weight of francophones, and the selection of French-speaking immigrants from abroad, which gave the impression that these immigrants were learning French locally. The impact of both of these phenomena will tend to diminish.[277]

Ms. Alepin said that one challenge for Quebec is to have immigrants accept French as the only common language. She explained that, even though francophones are the majority in Quebec, immigrants are understandably drawn to English given the Canadian and North American context. She believes that having both federal and provincial language regimes operative in the same geographical area creates confusion and undermines Quebec’s efforts to francize immigrants. She said that the purpose of the Official Languages Act is “to make English the official and common language. The federal language policy ensures not only that anglophones can receive services in English—already done by Quebec—but also that anyone who wishes can use English in public.”[278]

Similarly, Ms. Meggs said that the fact that immigrants arriving in Quebec “can choose either official language for work or study permits, for permanent residence and for access to citizenship”[279] sends the message that, in Quebec, “English is an official language of their new country. They are allowed to choose English, and it’s even fine if they do.”[280] This is “the exact opposite of the message that Quebec is trying to convey, and it forms the basis for the Accord, namely the assertion that French is an inclusive, participatory language.”[281]

In the same vein, Mr. Lacroix stated that the “institutional overcompleteness” of Quebec’s anglophone minority increases English’s attraction for the province’s allophones:

[T]he anglophone community has an institutional network funded at a level that exceeds their demographic weight by a factor of three. This enables them to assimilate a large number of allophones. Indeed, anglophones in Quebec assimilate approximately half of allophones, even though the community accounts for only 8.1% of the population.[282]

Some witnesses pointed to francization – teaching French to immigrants – as a critical aspect of francophone immigration. Ms. Alepin said that, “if we really want to secure the future of French in Quebec, we would have to teach French to and integrate 90% of newcomers to maintain our demographic weight.”[283]

The Honourable Serge Joyal, a jurist and retired senator, said governments need to ensure that immigrants – and all their family members – have access to French courses and that this training is supported by government funding. He also noted that Quebec’s auditor general has reported on the “ineffectiveness of the French-language training programs for immigrants.” Mr. Joyal believes that “responsibility for the program needs to be redefined.”[284] Under the Canada–Quebec Immigration Accord, the province is responsible for providing permanent residents with the means to learn French and become familiar with the key features of Quebec society.[285]

Mr. Termote remarked that, as is the case in francophone minority communities, the impact of using francophone immigration to stabilize the number of French speakers in Quebec is uncertain:

What the Statistics Canada study published last year showed is that no matter how much you increase the percentage of French-speaking immigrants, it has little impact on the decline of French. The hypothesis has even been put forward that immigrants could only enter Quebec if they were French-speaking and came from a country where the official language is French, and the conclusion was that even that would only slow the decline a little. Indeed, there are other phenomena at play, such as the low birth rate.[286]

In addition, Mr. Termote said that immigration policies focused on demographic balance and population figures tend to disregard the human element:

I can’t help but say that we are indeed asking a lot from immigrants. They are asked to do jobs that we no longer want to do; they are asked to go to the regions because we don’t want to go there; they are asked to have children because we don’t want to have any; and they are also asked to switch to French overnight. But even if they did that, it wouldn’t be enough.[287]

Access to Justice in French in Minority Settings

On the issue of access to justice in French in minority communities, Mr. Daniel Boivin reported that his legal community is “pleased with certain protections that were included in the previous bill [Bill C‑32]”[288] and hopes that the new bill to modernize the Official Languages Act will remove the exception allowing unilingual Supreme Court judges and protect the Court Challenges Program.[289]

However, francophone lawyers would like to see the successor to Bill C‑32 address three specific issues: intergovernmental cooperation on access to justice in French;[290] regulation of judicial nominees’ language skills assessments, which the Fédération des associations de juristes d’expression française de common law deems “essential to the development of justice in French;”[291] and access to French-language bankruptcy services.[292]

French First-Language Education

The Enumeration of Rights-Holders

School is a central concern for official language minority communities because it is the main vector for transmitting language and culture, along with the family unit.

Over the years, the Committee has examined a number of issues relating to minority-language education, including the enumeration of rights-holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The FCFA explained that having the full profile of rights-holders is a major advance for school governance:

This is absolutely essential. For the first time, we will have a complete picture of all those whose children are entitled to attend a French-language school. It also means that there will be some pretty significant changes in terms of the government investments needed to support the infrastructure of our schools and the spaces in those schools.

In the west and in the north, there has often been a tug of war over numbers. I think this will be a game changer, but not in adversity.

All governments will now have the data required to meet the needs of francophones, and that is a very good thing. However, this commitment must not be for one census, but for all future censuses.[293]

As regards research, Mr. Forgues explained that the experts at the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities “often carry out analyses for communities that need to know how many rights holders there are in their school zone and district.”[294] However, these studies are done “piecemeal with limited means,”[295] because they do not have all the data needed to make a precise estimate of the number of people who meet the criteria in section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The 2021 Census “will enable us to do a Canada-wide estimate for each of the zones.”[296] Mr. Forgues noted that this information is essential for school boards and governments “to know where to build, renovate or expand schools.” Now, they will have “an accurate number for the rights holders and thus for potential in the communities.”[297]

Professor Landry called the change a major step forward and said that the enumeration of all three categories of rights-holders could identify 56% more rights-holders.[298] However, he pointed out that “the major challenge is to not only enumerate them, but to get the children to school. The 2006 post-census survey showed that lack of access to schools, and distance, were the reasons often given by parents for having sent children to another institution.”[299] Professor Landry believes that solving the problem will require a plan for communicating with the key stakeholders: parents.[300]

The Continuum of Minority-Language Education: Post-secondary Education

Recognizing that it had a duty to save French-language post-secondary institutions in minority settings, the federal government set aside $121.3 million in funding over three years in Budget 2021 for post-secondary institutions in official language minority communities.

While this initiative seemed promising initially, Ms. Lynn Brouillette, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, reported that it may not meet the needs of minority francophone post-secondary institutions. More specifically, the funding allocation mechanism is hampering the work of the association’s member institutions.

First, Ms. Brouillette explained that the provinces choose which initiatives are funded, as they have to match the federal funding. This limits the ability of the educational institutions to make proposals to the federal government:

Some members [of the association] have already told me that they would have liked to apply for a particular project or for funding, but were told by the province that it did not have a match to offer.[301]

In addition, the initiative does not require the provinces to provide new funding. Some provincial governments have apparently responded to requests from post-secondary institutions by telling them to make use of their existing operating budget. Ms. Brouillette explained the problem as follows:

Provinces already make huge investments in post-secondary institutions and so often ask francophone minority institutions to draw the matching contribution from the funding already being provided. Consequently, the province’s contribution does not constitute additional funding. What that means, in practical terms, is that institutions often have to rely solely on the federal funding they receive to carry out proposed projects. That funding, however, accounts for just 50% or so of the actual money needed to complete those projects.[302]

Mr. Martin Normand, Director of Strategic Research and International Relations at the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie Canadienne, made the following comments:

Then you end up with one-off projects that are not renewable and are only partially rather than fully funded. Establishments then tread water, that is, they repeatedly apply for funding for one-off projects rather than getting the core funding they need to fulfill their mission of supporting community development.[303]

Second, Ms. Brouillette said that the $121.3‑million initiative “allows only for the funding of non-recurring projects.”[304] Yet the applicant’s guide states that the federal government is seeking to strengthen the institutional capacity of post-secondary institutions and stabilize the post-secondary sector. The association is of the view that “the objectives tied to the funding and the mechanism to distribute the funding are very much at odds. It is impossible to put in place a system-wide corrective approach that will have a meaningful and lasting impact on the post-secondary sector’s institutional capacity and stability, and allow only for non-recurring projects.”[305]

Ms. Brouillette highlighted another problem with project-based funding. Without adequate core funding, “rectors and college presidents … no longer have the capacity to support so many projects. Sometimes there are even funds available to them, but they don’t have the capacity to go out and get them.”[306]

Accordingly, the association recommends that the federal government “completely overhaul its mechanism for distributing the funding earmarked for post-secondary education in francophone minority communities.”[307] It also recommends that the funding initiative “give post-secondary institutions access to enhanced core funding in order to truly stabilize the sector.”[308]

Mr. Lepage told the Committee that “those two levels of government must come to an agreement on a plan, lasting from 10 to 20 years, to refine the program of primary, secondary and post-secondary schools, as well as daycares.”[309] He believes that, “to a considerable extent, the provinces and territories have no intention of supporting their minority francophone communities.”[310] Mr. Lepage said that “this is the case in Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in British Columbia, where there is great reluctance to come to the assistance of the francophone minority.”[311] He therefore advised that the federal government “show some leadership, to bring together all the provinces and territories and then to hold a conference dealing specifically with francophone minorities outside Quebec, in order to see what must be done to solve this problem.”[312] Note that such a dialogue can occur in existing forums such as the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, and the Ministers’ Council on the Canadian Francophonie.

The Committee members had the opportunity to question Canadian Heritage officials about the implementation of the $121.3 million in funding. At the time of their appearance, the department was negotiating agreements with the provinces and territories.

Some witnesses took up the idea of the institutional “overcompleteness” of Quebec’s anglophone community and applied it to the post-secondary education sector. Mr. Lacroix argued that the federal government funds the anglophone minority’s educational institutions in a disproportionate way, to the detriment of French-language institutions:

[T]he grants that the federal government makes to Quebec universities put French-language universities at a definite disadvantage. Nearly 40% of funding that Ottawa provides to Quebec is allocated to English-language universities. Approximately one third of federal funding goes to McGill University alone. Systemic discrimination is exercised against French-language universities in federal funding allocation.[313]

Mr. Lacroix did not indicate which grants he was referring to.

More specifically, Mr. Lacroix maintained that the federal government must “abando[n] grants in support of the vitality of English in Quebec, such as those made under the Canada-Québec Agreement on Minority-Language Education and Second Languages Instruction, funding that enhances the status and vitality of English in Quebec.”[314]

Background Information: What Is the Canada-Québec Agreement for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction?

As regards the Canada-Québec Agreement for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction, the Committee notes that it is a bilateral agreement under which the federal government transfers funds to Quebec to help it cover the additional costs of delivering minority-language education and second-language instruction. It is mainly intended to cover primary and secondary education, but the provincial government can develop initiatives for early childhood and post-secondary education. Canadian Heritage manages the agreement on behalf of the federal government.

The agreement is designed to respect the province’s education prerogatives. Accordingly, Quebec chooses the investment priorities for each linguistic objective – minority language and second languages – and determines the federal government’s maximum investment. In fact, the federal contribution is subject to the Quebec government’s approval, and the latter must provide an amount equal to or greater than the federal contribution. This is the principle of matching funding.

The Canada–Québec Agreement for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction, 2020–2021 – Interim Measures contains the same provisions as the Canada-Québec Agreement for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction, 2014–2015 to 2017–2018. As a result, the federal government plans to transfer $42,047,048 to the Quebec government for minority-language education, $4,478,425 for French second-language instruction and $18,406,662 for English second-language instruction, for a total of $64,932,135 annually. Other spending can be authorized under this agreement, including supplementary contributions. These are also subject to the Quebec government’s approval. Note that the federal government’s planned spending under this Canada–Québec agreement has not increased since 2014.

Quebec’s Action Plan – a document the province must prepare under the agreement – shows that actual expenditures for each order of government in 2020–2021 were $71,933,439, for a total of $143,866,878.[315]

The federal government’s support for post-secondary education in Quebec goes beyond that set out in the Canada-Québec Agreement for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction. Other federal institutions provide grants and contributions to post-secondary institutions. These amounts are not necessarily allocated based on the language of the institution or that of its professors, researchers or students. Various criteria may be used to award this funding, including innovation and excellence. Addressing this subject, Mr. Lacroix advocated that the federal government review the criteria governing the allocation of federal funding to Quebec universities:

Funding allocation based on so-called excellence criteria in fact rewards past winners and penalizes past losers. In other words, that funding rewards universities that are already the richest, such as McGill. Different criteria should be introduced in federal grant programs.[316]

Mr. Lacroix therefore made the following recommendation:

[T]here ought to be a criterion based on language of instruction in allocating grants, because 40% of federal grants go to anglophone universities, whereas anglophones represent only 8.1% of the population. It’s unfair.[317]

The QCGN did not have the chance to comment on the statements reported above. Still, more generally, regarding the modernization of the Official Languages Act and Bill 96, An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec, the QCGN argued that governments – including the Quebec government – need to recognize that the province’s English-speaking communities and the support they receive from the federal government do not impair the vitality of French in Quebec.[318] The organization took the position that the equal status of the two official languages should remain a guiding principle of the Official Languages Act.[319] As for federal institutions’ commitments to official language minority communities, the QCGN believes the government should take an approach tailored to the circumstances and specific needs of the various communities,[320] which amounts to implementing the principle of substantive equality.

On the issue of the rights of Quebec’s anglophone minority, Professor Leckey highlighted the following:

[T]he federal government also has a constitutional duty to see to the promotion and protection of the minority official language in Quebec, which is English. Consequently, in defining federal duties, you also have to consider those constitutional obligations.[321]

One final note on minority-language post-secondary education: clause 21 of Bill C‑32 added several aspects to the commitment set out in Part VII of the Official Languages Act, including a requirement to advance opportunities to pursue quality learning in the minority language throughout the education continuum, from early childhood to post-secondary education.

Recruitment of French Teachers

The federal government is aware of the national shortage of French teachers – both first-language and second-language teachers. Strategies to recruit teachers were included in the Action Plan for Official Languages 2018–2023: Investing in Our Future.

Ms. Tamilio explained how this shortage is affecting the vitality of a small francophone minority community such as Sarnia-Lambton in Ontario:

The shortage of francophone teachers is a major problem in a community like ours. The quality of our services in French depends in part on how well our young people have been educated.… The challenge is genuine. Families have been opting for French immersion for their children but the school board lacks resources. There are no supply teachers who can teach in French and no additional educational resources to support the teachers. The social workers also don’t speak French.[322]

Ms. Tamilio also noted that the shortage is forcing school boards to hire teachers who do not always have the skills necessary to provide a quality education and that education support work is sometimes done by parents:

[T]here are French-language schools where unqualified teachers have full-time positions at the moment. They speak French, but they’re not necessarily qualified for the job. That’s a serious situation. There are not even any supply teachers. We’re looking for parents to act as supply teachers in the school; the only requirement is that they be able to speak French.[323]

The reform proposal suggested establishing a francophone immigration corridor to help recruit teachers and alleviate the shortage of French first-language and second-language teachers. Mr. Dupuis applauded the creation of such a corridor and advised that this method be used to make up for the lack of francophone or bilingual professionals in health care and early childhood education.[324] The government also plans to develop “a framework for the recognition of teaching diplomas” to ease teacher hiring and mobility.[325]

French Second-Language Instruction

Some witnesses stated that federal government support for French second-language instruction must be part of any strategy to enhance the language’s vitality. Ms. Cassie said, “[t]he importance of, and interest in, immersion programs should also be recognized, and we have to determine how we can continue to contribute to the vitality of individuals and families who choose French as their second language and their language of instruction.”[326] Ms. Cassie believes that ensuring these individuals “can have access to support services and programs” is critical.[327]

Ms. Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister of Official Languages at Canadian Heritage, provided an overview of the federal government’s investments in French second-language learning. Ms. Boyer said that the latest official languages strategy, the Action Plan for Official Languages 2018–2023: Investing in Our Future, “made it possible to better fund initiatives to promote French,” including French immersion programs, French second-language post-secondary scholarships, and support for second-language instruction and minority-language education. This support is distributed through bilateral agreements between the federal government and the provinces and territories. Ms. Boyer further noted that the 2021 federal budget “proposed to allocate $180.4 million [to Canadian Heritage] to expand bilingualism.”[328] She outlined the department’s plans for this funding:

First of all, we want to improve the French immersion and French second language programs in schools and postsecondary institutions. Second, we want to assist the provinces and territories in meeting the strong demand from students and parents for spaces in French immersion and French second language programs. Third, we want to enhance the strategy in place to recruit and retain teachers and support French language learning in early childhood.[329]

Ms. Tamilio reported that graduates of French immersion programs do support francophone minority communities. More specifically, at Bluewater Health Hospital and other public institutions in the Sarnia-Lambton region, these graduates are improving the availability of French-language services, which helped the region obtain a bilingual designation from the Ontario government.[330]

Finally, Mr. Normand underscored the important role that Canada’s francophone post‑secondary institutions play in the French second-language education continuum:

[T]o support second-language acquisition, our institutions offer post-secondary immersion programs or they welcome many immersion students who want to acquire technical and professional language skills in French.[331]

Other Issues

The “Discoverability” of French Works of Art

The Honourable Serge Joyal mentioned the “discoverability” of French works of art on digital platforms as an opportunity for action to support the growth of French in Canada. He believes that younger generations are influenced by English on the Internet. Accordingly, he proposed that the federal government work with the Quebec government to repeat what it did in 2005[332] by negotiating a new international treaty to ensure French-language works are “discoverable” on digital platforms.[333]

As Mr. Forgues explained, young people “need a French-language public and media landscape.”[334] He said that Radio-Canada plays an important role in this regard.

Regarding the shift to digital, Mr. Forgues said it is “important to understand just how this shift will play out, and the role of the francophonie in this new ecosystem, particularly in social media, where a major transformation is underway.”[335] Like former senator Joyal, Mr. Forgues noted that this issue has a major impact on youth: “Young people spend an enormous amount of time on social networks. It’s a place for socialization that is very important to them.”[336] In his view, it would be appropriate “to assess the impact of this phenomenon and to identify the language in which people are browsing and communicating on social networks.”[337]

The remarks of former senator Joyal and Mr. Forgues relate to a series of initiatives set out in the reform proposal to promote French. In particular, the federal government planned to recognize “the importance of the role of the CRTC and the Broadcasting Act to support the production, broadcasting and discoverability of Francophone content on air and in the digital space.”[338] Mr. Forgues noted that “Minister Joly has been holding discussions about the digital transformation,” adding that it is “important for francophones to be properly positioned for their own digital governance.”[339]

Conclusion and Recommendations

Most of the witnesses agreed that French must be protected and promoted in Quebec and across Canada. The federal government recognized that it has a role to play both in Quebec and in francophone minority communities to secure the future and the vitality of the French language.

Disagreements arose not on the overall goal but on the way to achieve it – on what kind of language regime is best. To some witnesses, the current federal language regime, with reforms to the Official Languages Act, can protect the rights of francophones and help French flourish across Canada. To others, who are more focused on Quebec, a location-based language regime providing for asymmetrical language rights is necessary.

The federal government set out potential legislative and administrative solutions in its reform proposal, the former have been included in Bill C‑32 and in Bill C‑13.

In light of the above and further to the legislative process for Bill C-13, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 1

That the Government of Canada recognize that the Charter of the French Language is essential to protect, promote and secure the future of French in Quebec.

Recommendation 2

That the Government of Canada work with the provinces and territories to provide francophone schools, from early childhood to postsecondary, with stable funding, rather than one-time funding per existing project, to build and renovate schools and institutions in order to meet demand, and to hire and retain teachers.

Recommendation 3

That the funding envelope that supports the postsecondary sector in francophone minority communities allow postsecondary institutions to increase their core funding to truly stabilize the postsecondary sector.

Recommendation 4

That the Government of Canada increase funding for programs supporting official language minority association and institutional networks as part of the new Action Plan for Official Languages.

Recommendation 5

That the Government of Canada take on a leadership role with respect to official languages by providing better support to francophone communities and school systems outside Quebec.

Recommendation 6

That the Government of Canada adopt new regulations to strengthen the requirements of Part VII of the Official Languages Act as soon as possible.

Recommendation 7

That the Government of Canada adopt a francophone immigration policy designed to restore and increase the demographic weight of minority francophones by adopting a catch-up target and providing the resources to achieve it.

Recommendation 8

That the Government of Canada pursue and strengthen the Francophone immigration strategy to repair, preserve and increase the demographic weight of Francophones.

Recommendation 9

That the Government of Canada take the necessary steps to further encourage the immigration of families with children in the federal immigration process, which will encourage and promote the learning of French at a younger age.

Recommendation 10

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada stop using the possibility of remaining in Canada after graduation as a reason for rejecting immigrant students’ applications.

Recommendation 11

That the Government of Canada help address the shortage of French teachers by supporting francophone teacher training and by adopting a francophone immigration policy that includes attracting newcomers able to teach in French.

Recommendation 12

That the Government of Canada formally recognize that French is in decline in Canada and in Quebec, particularly in urban areas including the metropolitan region of Montreal and that it take steps to reverse this alarming trend.

Recommendation 13

That the Government of Canada ask Statistics Canada to conduct a detailed study to come up with an accurate picture of the situation of French:

• a) by considering indicators other than the two indicators traditionally used (mother tongue and language spoken most often at home), by including the language of work and services in Quebec, the language used in the public sphere, the language of instruction, the language used on signage, or the first official language used at home or in the public sphere;
• b) by determining which indicators are the most useful for providing an accurate picture of the status of French in Quebec and which ones are not as useful;
• c) by considering a variety of factors, such as population density, whether a community is within a rural or urban area, and the region of the country; and
• d) by focusing on the various linguistic practices, including issues surrounding the transmission of French to children, the ability of French second language learners to retain their proficiency, barriers to growth, the integration and inclusion of francophone immigrants, and the barriers and opportunities in French-language educational paths from early childhood to post-secondary education.

Recommendation 14

That the Government of Canada ask Statistics Canada to provide more precise data to better understand the complexity of the use of language transmission to allow the government to adopt strategies better adapted to reality.

Recommendation 15

That the operation of federal institutions in Quebec aims a general use of French in all levels of services, including a good knowledge of French by the management group.