THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, February 2, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to official languages generally; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Allister W. Surette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Before we begin, I would ask you all to consult the cards on the tables in the committee room for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
My name is Allister Surette, senator from Nova Scotia and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I would ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
Senator Cormier: Good evening and welcome. René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Patterson: Rebecca Patterson, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to welcome everyone with us this evening, as well as those watching us online at sencanada.ca.
Today, pursuant to the general order of reference received from the Senate on September 25, we are studying the proposed regulations on administrative monetary penalties.
To that end, we welcome, from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Pierre Leduc, Assistant Commissioner, Strategic Orientation and External Relations; Patrick Wolfe, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance and Enforcement; and Pascale Giguère, General Counsel.
Thank you for accepting our invitation. We are ready to hear your opening remarks of five minutes, which will be followed by a question period with senators.
Mr. Leduc, I understand that you will speak first, followed by Mr. Wolfe. The floor is yours.
Pierre Leduc, Assistant Commissioner, Strategic Orientation and External Relations, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Good evening, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.
We would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we’re gathered is part of the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, an Indigenous people of the Ottawa Valley.
We’re pleased to be here today to discuss the proposed official languages administrative monetary penalty regulations that were tabled in Parliament in November 2025.
The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has been eagerly awaiting this tabling, which brings us one step closer to the coming into force of this power provided for in the modernized Official Languages Act. This power will help us ensure that federal institutions operating in the transportation sector and serving the travelling public comply with their obligations under Part IV of the act.
As you know, this part concerns communications with and services to the public.
[English]
As you may have read in Commissioner Théberge’s position paper, published last December before the end of his mandate, our team conducted an in-depth analysis of the proposed regulations. This analysis was essential in order to fully understand the impact of the regulations and the impact they could have on official language minority communities, on Canadians and on the actual Office of the Commissioner of Official Language’s activities. We established that many of the items we recommended in pre-consultations were integrated into the proposed regulations, including specific details on a proposed process of services notices of violation, the payment of administrative monetary penalties and the decennial review of the regulations. We also recognize that the maximum amount that can be imposed for certain penalties has been doubled to $50,000. We’re confident that this new maximum for a specific violation will help increase compliance with Part IV of the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
Patrick Wolfe, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance and Enforcement, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: It’s important to reiterate that a graduated approach will be used in exercising the commissioner’s powers. Administrative monetary penalties should not be seen as a financial lever, but rather as one tool among many to encourage compliance.
The commissioner’s position paper also notes that we are reasonably satisfied that nearly all of Part IV of the act is reflected in the three types of violations that have been defined in the proposed regulations. However, we remain concerned regarding the exclusion of port authorities from the list of institutions subject to the regulations. The number of admissible complaints filed with the Office of the Commissioner against port authorities demonstrates the importance of including them. All institutions that meet the criteria for the administrative monetary penalties regime should be subject to the same mechanisms.
[English]
Regarding the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, we’re aware that the government decided to exclude it from the regulation because it’s an institution strictly funded through public funds. That said, we’ve received numerous complaints from the travelling public regarding this federal institution that seems to meet the application criteria for the administrative monetary penalties. Additional tools would be welcome to ensure its compliance with its language obligation given its key role in the provision of air travel services and experiences for the public.
Pascale Giguère, General Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Our position paper also raises concern about certain elements of the proposed regulations that will complicate our internal process. For example, before being able to impose an administrative monetary penalty, we will have to follow a process that we consider to be very time‑consuming, largely because of the addition of several criteria that must be considered and because of the requirement to justify our reasoning and methodology for each proposed criterion.
[Translation]
Our analysis established that the requirements imposed by the regulations and the act far exceed those of other administrative monetary penalty policies.
When we look at other policies — whether it be the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act, or the Telecommunications Act — we notice that the vast majority of them don’t have regulations.
Furthermore, those that do include regulations don’t include requirements for the notice of violation other than what is already set out in the enabling legislation. In fact, most policies give discretion to the issuer of the administrative monetary penalty, and no policy requires substantive justification of the methodology used to determine the amount.
Although several policies include a list of criteria to be considered, these are left to the discretion of the decision-maker and do not require additional justification.
[English]
A mechanism that is more flexible and less complicated, similar to other existing administrative monetary penalty systems within the federal government, would enable the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to be more efficient and effective. Expectations are high for the modernized federal language policy. We, therefore, invite the federal government to take into account the considerations presented in our position paper so that the regulations have the potential to fully meet the objectives of the modernized act.
In order for administrative monetary penalties to achieve the desired compliance results, the regulations must ensure that we can make optimal use of them and not limit the number of federal institutions subject to them.
We hope that you will keep these considerations in mind as you conduct your in-depth review of the proposed regulations. Thank you for your attention and we are now ready to answer your questions, which, of course, you can ask in the language of your choice.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will now move on to questions. As I said earlier, let’s try to keep the question and the answer within the five minutes. We can have a second round of questions if necessary.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for your presentation, which brings a number of questions to mind. If I understand correctly, the commissioner expressed concerns about how numerous and cumbersome the criteria are. What can you tell us about that?
Do you think reducing the number of criteria would reduce the likelihood of challenges related to the criteria? Do you have any suggestions in that regard? Do you think there could be challenges if you forget to meet one of the criteria?
Mr. Wolfe: Thank you for the question. I think the commissioner’s position was specific to certain criteria in the regulations, not necessarily to the number of criteria.
Obviously, some of the criteria were self-evident, but there were a few that were not in some other policies.
I am trying to find the criteria in sections C and D of the regulations. They seemed to exceed what this type of regime usually requires.
Senator Cormier: The second part of my question concerns the possibility of a challenge to the notice of violation you would issue. What can you tell us about that?
Ms. Giguère: Yes, recourse is provided for. Once a notice of violation is issued for an administrative monetary penalty, the alleged violator can challenge both the issuance and the amount of the administrative monetary penalty.
What we mean by administrative burden is the justifications that must be included in the notice of violation. The act already sets out criteria. The regulations add criteria and specify that each of these criteria must be substantively justified in the notice of violation. It does become time-consuming and expensive to justify every single criterion. It also creates additional grounds upon which the administrative monetary penalty may be challenged, either because the justification is not sufficient or because the necessary threshold is not met.
Senator Cormier: In other words, if there were fewer criteria, that would reduce the administrative burden and prevent what you just described to a certain extent?
Ms. Giguère: Yes, exactly.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
During their appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, officials from Canadian Heritage stated the following:
The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA, is not subject to administrative monetary penalties because it is a Crown corporation funded entirely by parliamentary appropriations.
We decided that transferring money from Treasury Board to the Receiver General would not have the desired effect on a government department because we would simply be moving money around.
What do you think of the government’s explanation for why that Crown corporation is excluded? For example, if the administrative monetary penalty amounts were put into a fund to support projects that support Canada’s two linguistic communities, do you think that would have the desired deterrent effect? I think that’s what the commissioner was suggesting. Since this is not federal money that would stay in federal revenue, it would have to be put into a fund. Would that have some deterrent effect?
Mr. Wolfe: With all due respect to our colleagues’ position, it could certainly act as a deterrent. We each have our own budgets. When a commissioner issues an administrative monetary penalty, we have to explain it to our superiors. Whether it comes out of the president’s pocket or the taxpayer’s pocket, I understand that the money gets moved around. The goal is not to make money; it’s to ensure that institutions understand and respect their obligations. If a decision were made to remove or exclude certain institutions, that could send the message that they do not need to respect those obligations as fully or that the consequences are not the same. I’m not sure we see this the same way.
To answer your question, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages believes that, if it were possible to issue administrative monetary penalties to some of these institutions, the behaviour of the institutions being investigated could be adjusted to ensure that obligations are indeed taken into account.
Ms. Giguère: I would like to add that it would not be the first regime empowered to issue administrative monetary penalties against a publicly funded institution. In his 2019 position paper, which I’m sure you’ve consulted, Commissioner Théberge gave examples of other existing regimes. For example, the act makes it possible to impose administrative monetary penalties on federal government institutions with respect to environmental matters. Those institutions are, of course, publicly funded.
All federal institutions identified in Schedules I to V of the Financial Administration Act are subject to the administrative monetary penalties regime of the new accessibility commissioner. That includes all federal departments and agencies. The same goes for pay equity. The Pay Equity Act also gives the commissioner the ability to impose administrative monetary penalties on federal institutions.
There’s nothing novel about allowing the Commissioner of Official Languages to impose administrative monetary penalties on publicly funded institutions.
The Chair: That’s good. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Patterson: I’m going to follow up on Senator Cormier’s question, and this is more clarification for me.
I noted your point that in other regulation and areas, the criteria is not as strict. From a clarification perspective, is it because that legislation needs updating? I’m wondering if there are other areas that require work in order to ensure that official languages are properly used, because I think your point is very good; there’s a discrepancy and official languages seems to have quite a burden on establishing the criteria. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.
Following on to that, we know that the amounts of the penalty have now risen, and of course, in a democracy, you have a right to contest something that’s being imposed on you. Do you think that’s where some of the criteria come from?
I agree there’s efficiency and effectiveness in trying to ensure there is compliance with official languages, but the other side is, what about the justice? I’m not saying that’s not the case, but I’m wondering what your thoughts are in terms of stricter criteria, more explicit, which is a burden. But what is the reason for that? Is it to ensure that higher penalties give those that are responsible for this more chance to — I’m going to say — explain themselves? I don’t like to use that terminology. I’d like your perspective on those two areas.
Mr. Leduc: Thank you for excellent question.
The reason for the additional requirements is not clear to us. It has not been fully explained to us why there’s a divergence in the approach. In fact, our analysis is not just of one piece of legislation; I could understand if it was just one piece of legislation that needed to be modernized because it hasn’t been reviewed in decades or longer. It’s not just one piece of legislation. We’ve looked at 15 pieces of legislation where, of course, these requirements don’t exist.
Ms. Giguère: I can generally say that in the 15 regimes we’ve looked at, they are all very similar. There are some differences, of course, but they are relatively minor differences. Most of them require very simple information, like the name of the entity that is being given an AMP.
Some of them require the date of the alleged facts; some of them require legislative dispositions; and some of them require a brief summary of the relevant facts, but that’s pretty much the extent of the information that needs to be included.
The other information that is included in all the regimes — including ours, so that’s very standard — is a summary of the rights of the people that receive an AMP, which is the right to contest the AMP, and the fact that if it’s not contested, it is deemed to be; it’s considered to be an admission included in all the regimes, including ours, but in other regimes there are very basic facts.
Our regime, if you have looked into it, requires quite a bit more information. The methodology used to calculate the amount is not something that is included in any of the other regimes we looked at, and all of the evidence that we looked at is not something that is standard practice. And to your second question, all these other regimes have gone through the test of time. I’m sure they’ve been contested, and I don’t think that including more information will reduce the risk of contestation, so I think, on the contrary, as Senator Cormier pointed out, the more information that is to be provided, the more there is a risk of that information then being used to contest the Administrative Monetary Penalties, or AMP.
Mr. Wolfe: If I could add, in terms of the amount that was increased from 25 to 50, we understand that, but when we compare the other regimes, some of them go over an order of a million, millions. We’re very small in terms of numbers when you compare with other SAP regimes. So if we are going to compare, it’s something to keep in mind as well.
Senator Patterson: Your recommendation is that it is harmonized with other like legislation to be fair and equitable, efficient and effective in order to ensure compliance?
Ms. Giguère: So that it doesn’t become so burdensome that we cannot use the regime. If it’s simpler, then it’s more likely that we will be able to use this power, and I think there is an expectation that we should use this power when it’s necessary. If the regime is simpler to use, that will increase the effectiveness.
[Translation]
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Gerba: Again, welcome. In your opening remarks, you lamented the fact that port authorities are not subject to the regulations. Can you explain why that would be necessary?
Mr. Wolfe: In our opinion, port authorities, like airport authorities, do the same work and are institutions that must provide the same kind of services to the Canadian community in both official languages. Some port authorities manage airports; so, as my colleague said earlier, we don’t see any explanation, and we receive a significant number of complaints about port authorities every year. As we see it, whether someone flies out of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport or Toronto Pearson Airport, why wouldn’t the commissioner have the same power to investigate and enforce obligations? Some institutions may not need to worry about administrative monetary penalties, but others do. We don’t understand why those institutions were excluded from the regulations.
Senator Gerba: Thank you. In your remarks, you talked about other regulations that already exist. Is there a regulatory model that could have been followed for this?
Ms. Giguère: We looked at some 15 policies. They all have similarities, but they do differ in some respects. The information in the notice of violation for the administrative monetary penalty is basically the same for all of them. As I mentioned, this is very simple information, so our regime is much more burdensome in terms of the information that must appear in the notice of violation.
We looked at different aspects of different regimes and how notices are served. We’re satisfied with what’s included here about methods of service because it’s consistent with other regimes. It depends on the aspect, and we don’t necessarily have a model for every aspect, but with respect to the burden for notices of violation, this one here is not typical and is much more burdensome than all the others we looked at. It contains elements that aren’t in any other regime. We don’t have a specific regime for that, but the same elements appear in the 15 regimes we looked at.
Senator Gerba: Do you think these regulations will have the desired deterrent effect on those who violate the Official Languages Act, which is really the objective of these regulations? Will it enable the offender to comply with the law?
Mr. Leduc: Yes, Commissioner Théberge received and commented on the proposed regulations. He said it was a step in the right direction and he was pleased at the prospect of expecting better compliance.
That said, it is important to point out that, for the Office of the Commissioner and for Mr. Théberge, administrative monetary penalties are a power of last resort. The Office of the Commissioner is not eager to issue administrative monetary penalties. That will never be its first move. Rather, it will adopt a graduated approach with different powers and different ways of encouraging compliance, so to speak. I would also point out that the amounts of the administrative monetary penalties will not be determined by the Office of the Commissioner, but rather by the Receiver General.
Mr. Wolfe: In addition to the deterrent effect, this will have an effect on the institutions that are subject to the regulations, so presumably no one will want to be issued an administrative monetary penalty. There will be investigations, and some institutions will be offered compliance agreements, so I think we can expect greater openness towards those.
Senator Moncion: You said there are places where the government or Treasury Board have been cautious and other places where they have been creative. In still other places, they’ve been reluctant to expand the pool of offenders. You just explained the difference between port authorities and airlines. If we take the example you gave for airports, it’s the airline that would be penalized, not the airport, and that’s only airlines that fall under federal jurisdiction. Do I have that right?
Mr. Wolfe: Yes. For the record, airport authorities are federal institutions, and we get a lot of complaints about them. Carriers are also subject to administrative monetary penalties, but in terms of the number of complaints we receive each year, several relate to port and airport authorities, which are independent entities subject to administrative monetary penalties. It’s not necessarily the carrier. In some cases, an incident could involve both entities, but we would conduct separate investigations. Incidents involving a carrier are dealt with in one way, but airport authorities have obligations under the act, and they are the ones responsible.
Senator Moncion: Are all airports in Canada under federal jurisdiction?
Ms. Giguère: The vast majority are, and airports are managed by airport authorities. So an airport authority can manage one or more airports, but the airports are managed by an airport authority. The same applies to ports, which are managed by a port authority.
Senator Moncion: Some ports handle passengers, while others handle goods. Are the regulations different for those that handle passengers?
Mr. Wolfe: The way it’s written, the regulations cover Part IV in its entirety. Part IV explains which parties are subject to it across Canada. Not all ports and airports have significant demand. Without getting into the details, there’s a whole regulation that explains significant demand, and that’s where port and airport authorities have to offer service in both languages. That won’t change. The regulations apply only to offences that are set out in the act.
On the other hand, the obligations remain, and the ports and airports must still fulfill them. However, what’s changing is that the Office of the Commissioner will have one more way to enforce rights. If the office issues recommendations but fails to convince an institution to take action, the office would now have the power to issue administrative monetary penalties.
Senator Moncion: For official languages, is the government being more cautious about the penalty amounts? You said the other 15 regimes allow for millions, but the amounts here are relatively low compared to amounts that could actually change behaviour, if that’s the goal.
Mr. Leduc: Some stakeholders have said that they would like the amounts to be higher to ensure greater powers or better compliance. Commissioner Théberge mentioned that he was in favour of the $50,000 and that it would make a difference. However, he added that he wanted a periodic review to be done every 10 years to study the issue and see whether compliance has actually improved over time and whether adjustments should be made. We have, in fact, been contacted by stakeholders who think differently, which shows that there is more than one way of looking at things.
Senator Moncion: Do the regulations only affect Part IV, or were they also intended to affect Part VII?
Mr. Leduc: Just Part IV.
Ms. Giguère: Part IV only.
Senator Moncion: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: I have a question about red tape, which raises many issues. You referred to 15 or more other regimes. Have you done an analysis of your ability to deliver? You mentioned that you were not necessarily able to use the regime. I’m curious and uncomfortable about that, because the regime includes things that you may not have the capacity to deliver on. Have you done any analysis of your capacity or what it might look like operationally?
Mr. Wolfe: Yes. We did a little analysis before we saw the regulations but knew they were coming. We didn’t expect such red tape. The study concerned other regimes and was based on what we were seeing. We felt we could deliver on that mandate.
Despite the added red tape, there will be no budget increase. If we have to spend more time issuing administrative monetary penalties, in addition to the added red tape, that limits the effectiveness and the number of administrative monetary penalties we can theoretically impose.
As my colleague Mr. Leduc said, it’s a last resort. In an ideal world, we could achieve compliance without having to issue an administrative monetary penalty. It is hard to determine the exact number of people affected, but if the regulations remain as they are, it will be much more time-consuming and complicated to issue them.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: My question concerns the entire experience of the travelling public. Let’s say I’m in Saint John, New Brunswick, and I take the ferry to Nova Scotia. I arrive at the Halifax airport, fly into Montreal, transfer to Toronto and then take the train to Winnipeg. To complete my trip, I take another plane to Edmonton. I’m a Canadian, so I expect service in both official languages everywhere. When I’m in Winnipeg or Toronto, I go to the store inside the airport and expect to be served in both official languages.
I understand that we are bound by Part IV and that all this applies in some specific places and not others, but on behalf of the travelling public, do the regulations address enough transportation-related issues for you to have the power to do anything about them? You say it’s a last resort, but with the number of complaints you receive from us as travellers and members of the public, I hope that the last resort will be used too much rather than not enough.
The first type of violation, type A, concerns services provided by third parties. That means stores and restaurants located in airports, for example. Based on the idea that airports are responsible for enforcing obligations, do you really think that small businesses located in airports will offer bilingual services in a year’s time? How do the regulations meet or fail to meet the obligations? Are we wrong to think that type A makes no sense?
Mr. Wolfe: The obligations are there and the regulations don’t change them. A restaurant located in an airport has an obligation to provide service in both languages. That was the case before and that will not change. What changes is knowing that the commissioner can influence the way airports operate. We have new powers and we can now enter into compliance agreements. We can try to convince them by means other than recommendations that are occasionally implemented.
I think the government saw fit to issue an administrative monetary penalty regime because having to pay that kind of money would be a deterrent. I think we can expect an improvement.
Senator Cormier: What happens if an airport says it tried to contact a restaurant, such as an A&W, asking it to comply with the law, but got no response? It made an effort, obviously, but how can an administrative monetary penalty address that kind of issue?
Mr. Wolfe: I don’t think it solves it 100%, but perhaps the efforts will be more sustained. If there were no way it could receive an administrative monetary penalty, perhaps it wouldn’t go as far as when it knows that each incident could cost $25,000.
Senator Cormier: Given the number of businesses in an airport, would there be a penalty of $50,000 for each instance of non-compliance?
Mr. Wolfe: I believe it’s calculated per offence. If you’re talking about the third-party portion, the maximum is $25,000 and each complaint counts as one, then yes.
Senator Cormier: Do you think it’s a useful tool, or not really? Beyond the red tape associated with it, in terms of the travelling public and Part IV of the act, what would make the regulations more effective as a deterrent?
Ms. Giguère: Some of the things mentioned are the number of institutions subject to and designated in the regulations. It’s clear that there are very few of them.
Senator Cormier: Is it because they don’t have to comply with Part IV of the act, or do they have an obligation to?
Ms. Giguère: It’s a continuum. All the institutions listed in the Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations are, first and foremost, institutions that have obligations under the act.
As my colleague Patrick mentioned, it’s another tool in the commissioner’s tool box to encourage compliance, but not many institutions are subject to it. That limits the number of administrative monetary penalties that can be issued based on travellers’ experiences.
Senator Cormier: Are you suggesting that more of them be subject to the regulations?
Mr. Leduc: That is in fact Commissioner Théberge’s position. He would have liked to see more federal institutions subject to administrative monetary penalties. If I may also add something, the fact that there are now administrative monetary penalties does not mean that everyone will automatically be given a penalty of a particular amount. However, as Mr. Wolfe said a few moments ago, it gets the attention of certain federal institutions.
Senator Cormier: Should the Canada Border Services Agency, the Federal Bridge Corporation, the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, the ferry companies, NAV Canada and Transport Canada be subject to them?
Ms. Giguère: The criteria need to be met. There are more than two, but the institutions must be Crown corporations or corporations that are subject to the act through their enabling legislation.
For example, airport authorities are subject to the Official Languages Act through their enabling legislation. The same is true for Air Canada, which is subject to the Official Languages Act through its enabling legislation. These criteria are in the act. They can’t be changed unless the act is revised. For now, the new act has just been passed. These are the criteria we have to work with.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Gerba: We understand that the Commissioner of Official Languages wants to use administrative monetary penalties as a last resort. That’s what you said.
In his opinion, it is a preventive measure and a last resort, but based on the question from my colleague Senator Cormier, there will be no police at airports to ensure that the regulations are actually enforced. The information may not even be disclosed to businesses. Everyone is supposed to know the law, but I don’t think a young woman who works at a business has had time to read the regulations or find out what the consequences are for her boss.
Is there a way to include that in the regulations so that business owners with employees who serve Mr. Cormier as a customer are aware of the risks of not complying with the act?
Mr. Wolfe: I’m going to repeat myself a bit: The obligations are the obligations. Businesses have to comply with them. Right now, we receive hundreds of complaints a year about airport authorities, since that was your example. There are a number of incidents where we have to produce reports and make recommendations to institutions to ensure that they meet their obligations.
That often means asking airport authorities to have provisions in their third-party contracts and to do everything in their power to ensure that the obligations under the act are met. Sometimes it works well, and other times less so. An administrative monetary penalties regulation gives us an additional tool when it comes to discussions where we can’t come to an agreement or where institutions refuse to take steps so that their third parties understand. The institution, the airport in your example, has an obligation to inform A&W and the employees who work there of their obligations. Some have implemented very good practices that work better than others. Some refuse to take action. Regulations obviously give us another tool to achieve compliance.
Senator Gerba: If I understand correctly, the administrative monetary penalties are there to supplement the orders and agreements?
Mr. Wolfe: That is correct, along with mediation and corrective measures that institutions can take. These are all new powers that the commissioner now has through the modernization of the act.
Senator Gerba: How do you plan to use administrative monetary penalties as opposed to orders and agreements?
Mr. Wolfe: As we said, it’s more of a last resort. We’ll try to find less coercive ways. Before we issue administrative monetary penalties, the act provides that institutions be asked whether they are prepared to enter into a compliance agreement. My office won’t be able to issue administrative monetary penalties without holding discussions with the federal institution to see if we can come to a compliance agreement. There are steps to follow. As we said, it is a last resort.
Orders and administrative monetary penalties are two separate things. If you really want to require a change of behaviour or anything else, you have to go through an order. The administrative monetary penalty does not change behaviour. It may convince institutions to comply with their obligations, but the administrative monetary penalty doesn’t require a change per se. Only an order can do that. Technically, both could be applied to the same case. These are really two last-resort measures.
Senator Cormier: Like you, we have been working on and trying to understand the issue of compliance with official languages for a long time. You say it’s a last resort and you try to come to an agreement to make people comply.
This may sound harsh, but it doesn’t really work. It works quite badly. Year after year, the travelling public files official languages complaints. We passed a new law. We tried to strengthen the act. We came up with regulations. What I’m hearing from you is that the regulations will be used as a last resort. Perhaps this is my question: Do you have statistics on institutions’ level of compliance with the act, specifically Part IV? Are you able to tell us the percentage of institutions that comply? Is it an illusion to think that it doesn’t work? Do you have any statistics on that?
Mr. Leduc: We have some statistics. To answer your question, senator, the challenge is that the statistics and complaints we have are not a study we will conduct to ensure compliance. It’s more the number of complaints we have received. I’m sure you know people who have experienced problems and not filed a complaint. This is just a snapshot, or maybe a tiny part of the true snapshot of what is happening, whether with airport authorities or another institution. Obviously, our annual report looks at this issue and reports, year after year, on the number of complaints in the various sectors. Some federal institutions always top the list for complaints received for various reasons.
That said, you are right. We’ve been trying to ensure better compliance for a long time. Commissioner Théberge said it, as did Commissioner Graham Fraser and many others before him. The issue of third parties in airport authorities has remained unresolved for a long time. I wasn’t at the office back then, but several years ago, there were discussions with a number of airport authorities. If I understood correctly, we didn’t agree on the obligations at the time.
Fortunately, we are now taking steps in the right direction. However, the issues have not been resolved. You’re absolutely right, Senator Cormier.
Mr. Wolfe: I cannot give you statistics to date on whether what is considered compliance has decreased or increased. I think the purpose of the review we wanted to see in five or ten years was to take a position on that.
Senator Cormier: I know some organizations are suggesting it should be every five years. What do you think? Ten years is a long time, long enough to get lost on a ferry somewhere.
Mr. Leduc: Five years is certainly possible. The issue is that five years may be too soon. It’s not clear to us how much information, statistics and experience we’ll have to propose changes to the regulations. In terms of the review of the act itself, I think the seven-year target would be a happy medium between ten and five years.
Mr. Wolfe: The power to issue administrative monetary penalties is one of the powers that have been given to us through the modernization of the act. There may be a rationale for reviewing it at the same time as all the other powers. We could analyze the impact of the changes and determine whether we have succeeded in ensuring greater compliance. We could see if adjustments need to be made to improve efficiency in the way we do things.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: How many complaints do you receive about businesses inside airports?
Mr. Wolfe: I can’t give you any figures; we don’t have that information today. I could make an internal request.
Senator Moncion: No, so it must be very rare.
Mr. Wolfe: No, I wouldn’t say it’s very rare. We see them regularly. I can’t give you an exact figure, but we receive quite a few about airport authorities, because there’s no direct control. It’s harder for them to manage.
There may be more incidents, then, but we receive them regularly.
Senator Moncion: Do many people know about this? Personally, when I walk through airports, I’ve never felt that the shops and restaurants should serve me in French. I was trying to make a correlation between the two, in terms of what is known and what is not known. There are people who know it, and they don’t hesitate to file complaints on behalf of those who don’t.
Mr. Wolfe: I won’t speak on their behalf, but yes, we get a lot of complaints.
Mr. Leduc: Commissioner Théberge encouraged the government, particularly Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Official Languages, to conduct awareness campaigns so that people understand what their rights are and where they have the right to be served in both official languages. The Office of the Commissioner does media and social media outreach. We don’t have the same means as large departments. We do what we can, but Commissioner Théberge said it’s like being a supply teacher.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Patterson: So it’s going back to data as well, because certain ones respect the number of years you need to effectively review the legislation again and see how you’re doing. We know it can take up to 10 years because we’re really looking at cultural change here, about people’s behaviour changing.
Currently, what type of data do you collect that would help inform whether you’re having an impact? As you said, a penalty is a final tool, but the other processes. What type of data do you collect to help us sort of see what the overall picture is?
Mr. Wolfe: In terms of compliance, we have all the complaints that come in. We try to see if there is a correlation between what is going on in the complaints world. We do have a team that started to think about how we would want to measure this. I think it’s still early, especially as some of these powers are not all active yet. We see it in terms of compliance as numerous tools and they kind of interact together.
Having the SAPs will surely increase compliance even though we might not use them. If you know there’s a cop with a radar, you will normally slow down, right? The impacts here are hard to measure sometimes but we have looked at the numbers. Right now, there’s nothing we can really conclude from what we have. We’re still early stages in using these new powers so we don’t have anything we can share with you at this point in time.
However, Commissioner Théberge mentioned a few times at committees that other departments should also be looking at how are we going to measure these changes and make sure that we have the data. He has also recommended, in one of his annual reports, that this should be looked at because we don’t want to wait until year 10 to start collecting the data.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. We’re nearing the end of the hour. Before giving the floor to Senator Cormier, since we’ve gone over the components of the regulations, do you have any other comments to make? I think we have a good understanding of the strengths, weaknesses and challenges.
Senator Cormier: I’ll be brief. There’s been a lot of talk about shops and restaurants at airports. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority manages that, and it’s a problem to get bilingual service. A complaint was filed in Moncton recently and elsewhere as well. Why are they not subject to the law? Those are federal dollars, after all.
Mr. Wolfe: To circle back to the response from Canadian Heritage in committee, we didn’t receive any explanation. I understand that they may also be subject to this legislation. That’s an important part of the traveller experience. It’s stressful for some travellers. For example, when they go to get a coffee, they may be asked questions, and it can be more stressful for them.
Senator Cormier: If we could say that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority is subject to the regulations, would that be an improvement?
Mr. Wolfe: Absolutely. That’s our position.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation and for appearing before the committee. Thank you for your answers. We will take all of it into consideration as we study the rest of this. That brings our first panel to a close.
Welcome to our second panel. As you’ve seen how this works, you will have understood that you have five minutes for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with a question period. I know you’re very well versed in this.
From Air Canada, we have Marc Barbeau, Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary; and David Rheault, Vice President, Government and Community Relations. From VIA Rail Canada, we have Denis Lavoie, General Counsel, Legal Services; and Gabrielle Caron, Senior Legal Counsel, Legal Services and Regulatory Compliance.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation.
We will begin with the representatives from Air Canada. Mr. Rheault, you have the floor.
David Rheault, Vice President, Government and Community Relations, Air Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators.
First, I’d like to acknowledge the presence of my colleague Marc Barbeau, Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary of Air Canada, who has also been a professor at McGill University’s Faculty of Law for 30 years.
[English]
I want to thank all the committee members for the invitation to appear today.
[Translation]
Air Canada serves 50 airports in Canada and close to 150 around the world.
We operate 1,000 flights per day on over 400 routes, and carry 50 million passengers per year.
[English]
We are proud to connect Canada to the world.
[Translation]
On average, on their journey, each passenger has five to six points of contact with our staff. Our interactions start with ticket purchases. They continue with check-in, reception at the airport, onboarding, in-flight service and baggage collection. Official languages are present at each of these stages. Using and promoting them are an integral part of our values and priorities.
In particular, for every flight designated bilingual, employees are assigned to serve our customers in the official language of their choice. Air Canada complies with its language obligations despite unique operational complexities. No other organization, department or business subject to the Official Languages Act faces challenges as varied and unpredictable as ours.
Air Canada is fully committed and has implemented a series of initiatives to improve its delivery of services in both official languages. In particular, we have made it a priority to recruit bilingual employees across the country. Today, nearly 50% of our employees who serve travellers can be qualified as bilingual, and nearly 65% have capacity in both official languages. We have implemented awareness and training measures for our employees, developed a comprehensive language training program, and established an official languages management committee responsible for integrating our action plan.
The Commissioner of Official Languages regularly reviews Air Canada’s activities and issues recommendations. His office also receives complaints from passengers. However, and I don’t mean to downplay their importance, those complaints remain limited in number, given the scope of our operations. In 2024-25, for example, there were 85 complaints against Air Canada, while we carried nearly 50 million passengers. This number is a testament to our willingness and efforts to meet our obligations.
In total, the commissioner received 1,200 complaints that year. As you know, Air Canada is subject to obligations that do not apply to any other airline or even any other private company serving the general public.
While a specific plan for Air Canada may have seemed justified when it was privatized in 1989, the reality has changed profoundly. At that time, Air Canada had over 80% of the domestic market and was the only carrier on many routes across the country. Today, we represent about 40% of that market. New carriers have set up shop across the country.
WestJet, for example, serves all the provinces, and its share of the domestic market is around 35%. Porter also serves all provinces and has acquired significant market share at airports serving francophone communities. For example, here in Ottawa, Porter has 35% of the capacity.
Finally, nearly 70 foreign carriers serve Canada: None of them are subject to any obligation whatsoever in terms of services in French.
The Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act provides that obligations will apply to other carriers. For the sake of consistency, the remedies must be the same.
To quote the Commissioner of Official Languages, this means that the members of the public that businesses serve and the employees who work there will have different rights and even different remedies depending on the case. At the end of the day, Canadians will find themselves in a fragmented and sometimes inconsistent linguistic environment. Greater harmonization is needed.
[English]
These regulations will maintain and reinforce a non-level playing field where Canadians don’t have a guarantee to be served in the language of their choice.
[Translation]
We also note that the government exempts itself from these penalties. However, several government agencies play a key role in providing services to the travelling public, such as CATSA, the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Transportation Agency.
However, as the Office of the Commissioner representatives said, there are many examples in the law of monetary penalties applying to the government directly or to its agencies — environmental penalties, for example.
In conclusion, we support any measure aimed at enhancing the value of French and ensuring its expansion. However, monetary penalties will not help overcome the real barriers to providing services in both official languages, such as the availability of bilingual labour across the country.
However, if this measure is implemented, it should apply to all organizations, including federally regulated ones and businesses that must provide services in French to the travelling public, either under the Official Languages Act or the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act.
Thank you for your attention. We’re available to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Rheault.
Mr. Lavoie, you have the floor.
Denis Lavoie, General Counsel, Legal Services, VIA Rail Canada: Good evening, Mr. Chair and honourable senators.
I am pleased to appear before you today to speak about VIA Rail Canada’s successes and progress in fulfilling its obligations under the Official Languages Act, and to discuss the proposed regulations concerning administrative monetary penalties related to Part IV.
I am accompanied by my colleague Gabrielle Caron, Senior Legal Counsel at VIA Rail, who oversees all matters related to official languages within our organization.
To begin, allow me to briefly remind you who we are. VIA Rail operates the country’s only national passenger rail service on behalf of the Government of Canada. A Crown corporation established in 1977, VIA Rail provides Canadians with a safe, efficient, accessible, bilingual and environmentally responsible service. The Government of Canada is our sole shareholder and thus contributes financially to the fulfillment of our mandate.
Indeed, as a public service provider, VIA Rail offers destinations across the country through its regional and long‑distance services. We travel from coast to coast across a network of 12,500 kilometres of rail and serve more than 400 communities and over 4 million passengers annually.
[English]
Over the past several years, and thanks to the significant investment made by the Government of Canada, VIA Rail has undertaken one of the most ambitious modernization programs in its history. These investments have enabled us to replace our trains in the Quebec-Windsor corridor with an entirely new fleet of modern, comfortable and among the most accessible trains in the world. We have also launched a new, more user-friendly and fully bilingual reservation platform that better meets travellers’ needs.
Furthermore, the 2024 federal budget provided the necessary investment to replace our trains, now more than 70 years old, that served regions across the country outside the Quebec‑Windsor corridor. This represents the most significant project undertaken by VIA Rail since its creation back in 1977.
Just like our new fleet of trains in the corridor and our new reservation system, onboard features will allow us to communicate with passengers and meet our obligations to offer bilingual service. We look forward to offering Canadians and visitors from around the world a modern and bilingual travel experience in all regions of the country.
[Translation]
It is in this context that I would like to address the issue of interest to the committee: the study of the proposed regulations on administrative monetary penalties specific to Part IV of the Official Languages Act.
Allow me first to explain how VIA Rail distinguishes itself in the way we approach and comply with the Official Languages Act, through its openness and its understanding of the country.
First of all, anyone recruited to interact with travellers and other members of the public must be bilingual at the time of hiring. We are making every effort to be able to offer service to all Canadians in the official language of their choice in our stations, call centres and on board all our trains, across the country and whenever possible, regardless of demand.
The company has always strived to offer the quality of service that Canadians have a right to expect from their national carrier. VIA Rail also adopts this service policy to meet the safety requirements of its passengers.
[English]
Such a public service approach across the country is, from an operational point of view, easier to manage and reflects the important role played by VIA Rail in promoting linguistic duality as a symbol of Canadian cultural identity.
Successive commissioners have, at times, cited the corporation as an example among federal institutions. Our passengers have echoed this sentiment. Quarterly surveys revealed that 98% of our customers are satisfied with being served in the official language of their choice.
This level of satisfaction is reflected in their relatively low number of complaints filed with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Thus, and according to the process and criteria suggested in the draft regulation, we considered the likelihood of an investigation concerning us reaching the stage of financial penalty to be low.
[Translation]
In summary, we recognize the legislator’s objective with this proposed regulation because, just as with the modernization of the Official Languages Act, it takes into account the numerous consultations conducted, which reflect many of the demands made by various interest groups, including minority language communities.
[English]
As a senior executive member of VIA Rail’s management team and responsible for the implementation of the act within our company, I consider it my duty to exert a strong influence on my colleagues and employees in order to strengthen our culture as a bilingual public service provider.
[Translation]
Thank you for your attention. We’d be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentations. We will now move on to the question period.
Senator Gerba: I’m surprised to learn that Air Canada received only 80 complaints in 2025, given that Air Canada and VIA Rail, among other institutions, have been the subject of recurring complaints over the years to the Commissioner of Official Languages. The new regulations are specifically intended to address this situation.
Over the past five years, can you specify the number of complaints that have led us to where we are today, about to impose regulations on Air Canada’s and VIA Rail’s operations?
Mr. Lavoie: Over the past five years, from 2021 to 2025, among the 4 million passengers who used the service annually, VIA Rail received a total of 35 complaints, representing an average of about seven complaints per year.
Senator Gerba: In that case, is that considered a lot compared to Air Canada’s 80 complaints?
Finally, what types of violations occur frequently?
Gabrielle Caron, Senior Legal Counsel, Legal Services and Regulatory Compliance, VIA Rail Canada: We consider our record to be exemplary, in the sense that the complaints that keep coming back are mainly related to what I would describe as subjective non-compliance and are often related to service, the active offer of bilingual service on board trains — an employee who has spoken the wrong language to a customer or passenger, for example. I want you to know that we take this seriously. In recent years, we’ve implemented a new evaluation mechanism for our front-line employees to ensure that they are actively offering bilingual services in an appropriate manner. All employees undergo this evaluation once a year. We expect this to yield results in the coming years.
Senator Gerba: Thank you. In your opinion, VIA Rail and Air Canada, how might the new penalty regime change your approach to the mechanisms currently in place?
Ms. Caron: We’ve always taken official languages seriously because we’re a federal Crown corporation. We will continue to take this matter seriously despite this new administrative monetary penalty mechanism, so we’ll keep doing what we are doing. We also plan to update our policy over the next year, and there are various projects under way at VIA Rail to strengthen our official language controls. We’re also evaluating AI tools to enable employees to work in the language of their choice — although they already do so right now — and to ensure greater fluidity in bilingual communications. We’re always on the lookout for best practices and, as a Crown corporation, we’re committed to implementing them in our daily activities.
Senator Gerba: Is the penalty significant enough and a deterrent for you?
Ms. Caron: The commissioner mentioned that it was a mechanism of last resort. As soon as we receive a complaint, we take it seriously. We receive the notice of intent to investigate, and, within hours and days, the notice is immediately sent to people internally for processing. The same is true when we receive questions from investigators: We respond very quickly and correct the situation if it’s indeed non-compliance. We take complaints just as seriously, and we work with the commissioner to identify additional controls that can be put in place. We hope we won’t have to resort to administrative monetary penalties; of course, we would prefer to negotiate compliance agreements first.
Senator Gerba: For Air Canada, is 80 complaints a lot?
Mr. Rheault: Eighty complaints is a decrease for us, compared to 2022-23 and 2023-24, when there were 300 complaints for one year and 150 for the other. During the year with the 300 complaints, we had issues with the reservation system, so the information from travel agencies about clients’ preferred languages was poorly transmitted. That meant that clients could receive notifications that weren’t in their preferred language.
We fixed that system to dramatically reduce the number of complaints. Compliance with the act is a very important goal for us, and our efforts are very sincere. With all our systems, whatever we can do automatically, we do. When it comes to customer service, we obviously may be a bit more exposed than others because we have many more interactions. For example, our colleagues at VIA Rail have 4 million passengers a year, and we have 50 million. Because of the scale of our operations, which are also around the world, we’re a bit more exposed than other federal institutions, but that doesn’t mean that our efforts aren’t consistent and sincere.
We think that this number reflects the significant efforts we’re making. We offer official language training for all employees, and we have staff assignment systems to ensure that there are always bilingual employees on all flights. We constantly remind our employees of procedures; if they’re uncomfortable serving a client in the official language of their choice, they must turn to a colleague. We check the compliance of the presence of bilingual flight attendants on every flight. We do that on a monthly basis: We check all flights to ensure that there are bilingual workers available. These are compliance rates that exceed 99% in terms of staff presence. We take it very seriously, and I can tell you that it isn’t because of a lack of effort or willingness that we receive complaints.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. I have questions for both organizations. You have told us a lot about what you do to comply with the act, and I appreciate all the efforts that are being made. I’d like to hear more from you about the regulations, the impact of the regulations and the transportation of Canadians. Ms. Caron, you talked about subjective complaints; what do you mean by that?
Ms. Caron: We sometimes receive complaints where everything is very clear-cut. For example, if we receive a photo where we can see that the signage wasn’t bilingual, we have evidence of non-compliance that we can look into. Sometimes, it’s a passenger who complains about receiving service in a language that wasn’t their preferred language. In such a case, we follow up with employees, but the employee often doesn’t remember everything because of the time that has passed since then, so it’s very difficult to investigate that type of complaint. That’s the distinction I’m making.
Senator Cormier: When you look at all the criteria — and the officials from the commissioner’s office talked about this earlier — do they seem appropriate to you? It’s difficult, because you’re the ones at risk of administrative monetary penalties. I don’t know if you have properly examined the criteria, but do you think those criteria, which seem very important to the office of the commissioner, should be reduced? What do you find to be the most appropriate or the least appropriate?
Ms. Caron: We were comfortable with the list of criteria proposed in the draft regulations. We think that getting justification from the commissioner’s office for each of those criteria that support the issuance of an administrative monetary penalty will enable us to determine whether a challenge is actually appropriate. We were very comfortable with this at first; if there are any changes to be made, we certainly reserve the right to provide additional comments later on in the assessment of these draft regulations. On the face of it, we were very comfortable with the criteria set out.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. I have a question that may be beyond your immediate mandate, but as you know, you’re one of the entities designated under clause 2 of the proposed regulations. Are there any other institutions that should be added to the list of entities that are covered? What do you think of the potential high-speed rail project that will connect Quebec City to Toronto? Do you think that project should take into account the review of the draft regulations?
Ms. Caron: In Bill C-15, which is the bill with the high-speed rail, provisions on official languages state that any party likely to operate in the corridor in the future will be subject to the official languages provisions. We welcome the inclusion of those provisions in the bill currently under consideration, given that the purpose is to protect the language rights of the passengers and employees in the corridor going forward.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Mr. Rheault, I understand that the due diligence defence is at the heart of the matter. When Bill C-13 was passed, you stated that the criteria the Commissioner of Official Languages must consider when determining a penalty amount include whether any corrective measures were taken and the operational constraints of the alleged perpetrator of the violation. What do you think of the criteria set out in the bill? Should any be eliminated or added?
Mr. Rheault: Thank you for the question.
First, in our view, the due diligence defence was a standard that should have been held in this bill. We see the range of penalties, but that isn’t the same thing. Due diligence is a defence to say that even if the law hasn’t been complied with, since the accused has proven that they had implemented measures to prevent the offence, there will be no penalty. In contrast, the criterion we have reduces the penalty based on the efforts made. This isn’t the same principle in law.
Removing the due diligence defence is really exceptional. For example, it’s present in Quebec’s Charter of the French Language. Why didn’t the federal government keep this defence, especially since the number of institutions subject to these sanctions is very limited? Institutions are completely excluded. Some of them have an important role to play in the travelling public continuum, and the available defences have been limited as much as possible or almost as much as possible for those who remain subject to these penalties.
I think the criteria in place are reasonable. That said, I’d like to add to what my colleague from VIA Rail, Ms. Caron, said. Our issues are similar. Obviously, we’re both transportation companies. It’s more difficult to investigate certain complaints, for example, when the complaint is raised three or four months after the trip and it involves an experience between a client and an employee. Our employees serve hundreds of people a day. Sometimes they have no memory of the interaction. We have similar processes: We follow up, talk to the employee, notify supervisors —
Senator Cormier: I understand what you’re saying.
Have you looked at the classification of types of violations? There are three types of violations: A, B and C. Do you think that’s a reasonable and fair classification? We were talking earlier about category A, which includes businesses. What do you think of that classification? It will have an impact on the type of administrative monetary penalties.
Marc Barbeau, Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, Air Canada: Thank you for the question.
Has that been looked at in detail? No. However, we looked at type A. If I understand correctly, those are specifically the businesses located at airports. The other types are service-related violations. In that sense, there’s clearly a distinction between types A, B and C. That is all we can see. Type A concerns our passengers who travel to airports, but it doesn’t concern us directly.
Senator Cormier: Time is running out. Do you think these regulations could be a deterrent? In fact, how do you see your organization using administrative monetary penalties?
Mr. Rheault: In a word, we find that the regulations are quite incongruous. They lack consistency, particularly in terms of the institutions they target. We were talking about airlines earlier. In reality, there’s only one airline that’s subject to these regulations and the Official Languages Act. There are regulations, but they can’t have the full effect for the travelling public because the targeted institutions are very limited. In that sense, we agree with the commissioner. He has taken steps and said that there should be more harmonization.
Our compliance efforts over the years haven’t been diminished because there were no administrative monetary penalties. This is an important goal for us. We’re investing a lot. Over the past three years, we have hired 1,800 flight attendants at Air Canada. Of those, 1,200 are bilingual. We can see that a sustained effort is being made in that area. We also want to hire people who speak [Technical difficulties] to serve people in the various countries where they travel. That complicates the environment in which we work. Administrative monetary penalties aren’t a solution to the challenges we face as an international airline.
[English]
Senator Patterson: I do find it quite striking; I had not thought that on the airline side, it only applies to Air Canada, because not only does a passenger have the right to be served in the language of their choice, it’s a safety issue as well.
I’m assuming you were part of the consultations when Canadian Heritage did their consultations. Did you include, as part of your recommendations to them, something about expanding who this would apply to, and that any other areas you actually proposed needed to be considered for the regulations that were or were not included? I am curious.
Mr. Rheault: Yes, we have raised this issue with the government on many occasions. I’m sure Senator Cormier will remember when the Air Passenger Protection Regulations were tabled. This is back in 2017. Senator Cormier, at the time, tabled an amendment to make sure that official language rights were also included in the passenger bill of rights so that it would apply to the whole industry. At the time, we had supported that amendment that was not retained by the government.
So, yes, we have always said that it should be the rights of a traveller, an air traveller should not be subjected to the carrier he chooses.
Senator Patterson: Stunning, thank you. It’s kind of like only certain people need to put their seatbelts on; that is what it feels like right now. Could you please reiterate your recommendation that should be considered as we move forward in our study of this regulation, in terms of who it should apply to?
Mr. Rheault: We think that to be consistent, these regulations should apply to all companies or entities that are involved in the passenger experience, be it CATSA, Canada Border Services Agency and, of course, all airlines that serve Canadians. We believe that this will ensure a consistent and harmonized regime in terms of official languages.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a question for you.
The principle of administrative monetary penalties isn’t necessarily to punish, but to encourage compliance. Mr. Rheault, in your opening remarks, you mentioned that administrative monetary penalties won’t make it possible to overcome barriers. Were you talking about Air Canada or this principle in general? I’m not familiar with the barriers you were talking about. Those barriers could include difficulty in finding bilingual workers, having an exclusion, as you just said, or the amount of the administrative monetary penalty itself. Can you expand on your idea that this won’t help overcome barriers?
Mr. Rheault: Thank you for the question. This will allow me to clarify what we meant.
The real issue, what we call the obstacle to providing service in both official languages across the country, is the availability of bilingual workers. There was a discussion in the previous panel with the commissioner’s representatives about businesses at airports. That’s the same thing. I don’t think that financially penalizing businesses in airports is the best way to help them deliver services to the travelling public. The same is true for all entities in the transportation chain.
I can tell you that Air Canada is committed to providing service in the customer’s language of choice. Are we perfect? No, but we’re putting a lot of effort into it, and we don’t believe that this penal aspect is necessary. It’s basically a matter of sending a message. I often hear about recidivism and violators even though we’re in a dynamic system with significant challenges.
Senator Cormier: It’s true that you were talking about the challenges associated with the fact that other airlines aren’t subject to the act as Air Canada is. We won’t revisit that.
I’m trying to understand. You’re challenging that mechanism by saying that until everyone is subject to it, it doesn’t make sense. I want to come back to Air Canada. You get fewer complaints, but you still get some. We’re well aware that you face challenges because we experience them and see them when we travel with Air Canada. You seem to be saying that these regulations will have no impact on your ability — more than your willingness, because you seem to have that willingness — to provide bilingual service and to be more vigilant about it.
What does that mean in terms of your relationship with your employees? You mentioned training, but I’m trying to understand. Mr. Rheault, Mr. Barbeau, you seem to be making all the necessary efforts, but it’s clear that this doesn’t always work. You may have reasons why it doesn’t always work, but there are regulations that will be put in place and that you will be subject to. You may end up with administrative monetary penalties. Do you agree with that or not? What can you tell us? You talk a lot about other companies, but I would like to come back to you, Mr. Barbeau.
Mr. Barbeau: Thank you for the question. We will accept the regulations as they are. We have been doing that with the Official Languages Act for 50 years. It is a law that applies to us and reflects values that we fully embrace. We will accept the regulations as written, but we want to highlight something. Mr. Rheault mentioned that I am a lecturer. I have about 50 students in my class. When I grade papers, I make a scale. I see the best papers, the not-so-good ones, and I can see where the overall trend is. We are in a club of one. These regulations highlight the fact that, unlike other entities, among airlines, we are in a club of one. When we talk about the reasonable efforts we are making, there is no comparison in terms of regulation. That is what we want to highlight.
As far as our efforts, our commitment, and our adherence to the principles and values of the Official Languages Act are concerned, we are still here. These regulations will be adopted, and I hope I will never have to debate them with the commissioner. I hope there will never be a possibility that a complaint leads to sanctions, but we will take it as it comes, and if we ever need to have conversations, we will have them.
Senator Cormier: Since you are going to comply with the regulations — whether there’s no regulation at all, or people say it is not necessary — given that it is there and it is going to exist, do you have any recommendations to make?
Mr. Barbeau: The laws of general application to which we are subject, like all litigants in Canada, provide for financial penalties. In the case of the Charter, for example, these are judicial penalties. Under the criteria set out in section 5 of Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, it is not the Office de la langue française that applies them, but the judge. You have very similar criteria. These principles exist. We will navigate this environment, which is not unfamiliar to us. The fact that there are administrative penalties in one area or another is not foreign to us. It is part of our commitment to compliance.
First and foremost, the senator spoke about safety. It can be said that safety is what matters above all, but that applies across all the laws that govern us. Whether or not there are administrative penalties, we take all laws seriously, and we comply with them fully and willingly.
Mr. Rheault: We find it unusual that financial penalties are being proposed as an important and effective measure, yet their application is limited to a small number of institutions. This seems contradictory to us from the outset.
When we talk about criteria and what can be improved, this ties in with the discussion about the type of violations and what is or is not subjective. One criterion refers to the systemic or repetitive nature of the violation. For us, when it isn’t the same employees involved, it is not systemic or repetitive. When an employee is involved in allegations, we meet with them and ensure that the service is corrected the next time the employee is on duty.
We are often criticized for the fact that the types of violations are similar. They often involve incidents on an aircraft or at an airport, but they do not necessarily mean the same employees are involved. This doesn’t mean that it’s systemic or repetitive when an incident involves an employee, and we take steps to correct the situation going forward. This is a discussion we have: what is systematic? For us, when it’s not the same routes, the same employees or the same flights — even if two incidents occur on opposite sides of the world and appear similar — it’s not systemic —
Senator Cormier: We are examining Air Canada as an organization. After that, whether an individual internally . . . The challenge you face is legitimate, but when it comes to dealing with an airline and seeing recurring complaints that are more or less the same, even if they are not from the same individual, you can understand that this is how we interpret it. I understand that there are challenges in identifying changes in personnel, but when we say it’s systemic, we mean that at Air Canada, a certain type of complaint keeps occurring. What is being done to remedy this problem? I understand the internal issues, but —
Mr. Rheault: Once again, when we look at the number of complaints, we are talking about a certain number of complaints out of 50 million passengers who have five or six points of contact with the airline. People go to the check-in counter, they board the plane, they go to baggage claim, they use the website. This does not indicate that there is a systemic problem. On the contrary, it proves that we are making systemic efforts to offer services in both official languages. The interpretation of the criteria will be key for us.
Senator Cormier: I will end on that note with a wink: It is certain that if you cut routes, the number of complaints will decrease. I am referring here to the Bathurst-Montreal route.
Mr. Rheault: Understood.
Senator Cormier: Of course you’ll receive fewer complaints, because you will have eliminated those routes.
Mr. Rheault: I will tell you that this was a difficult decision that was made after several years of challenges. The aircraft in our fleet are now more difficult to maintain on a regular basis in the smaller markets. That was the problem in Bathurst. We had been in discussions with the airport and the community for several years. We also announced the addition of daily service between Moncton and Ottawa and between Fredericton and Ottawa. We’re not just cutting services.
Senator Cormier: It’s very practical, at 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. when you’re coming from Caraquet. I won’t insist. Thank you.
The Chair: That’s beside the point, but it’s true.
I am thinking about the reality of the situation for you, especially at Air Canada. The number of complaints has been declining in recent years. I imagine you have started to look at what that means internally. If I understand correctly, the maximum amount for you is $50,000. It must be a complaint where the commissioner uses the tool as a last resort. I imagine you are already working on cases. Ultimately, will it make a big difference to you if you have two that are non-compliant and you receive penalties?
Mr. Barbeau: For us, the issue of compliance itself is important. The very fact of considering a violation, regardless of the amount involved, does not change.
If I understand correctly, the amount of $50,000 has been increased from what was stipulated in the law. The law stipulated $25,000 and the regulation stipulates $50,000; this is in line with the Charter of the French Language.
In terms of comparative analysis, the Charter of the French Language provides for up to $30,000, with a multiplier effect. This deserves further discussion. The regulation is in the same area as a very similar law.
The Chair: So that amount is not a major factor for you?
Mr. Rheault: The Charter of the French Language applies to all businesses in Quebec. Oddly, we will receive a monetary penalty that will only apply to one company.
That will expose us to costs that our competitors don’t have. Certainly, if we’re talking about $50,000 in relation to Air Canada’s revenue, that’s one thing, but if we consider that amount in terms of routes and the profit we make per plane ticket, it’s a lot. That adds costs to our operating expenses that our competitors do not have. Ironically, these are costs that businesses without an obligation to provide bilingual service do not have to bear. It’s as though it promoted growth for those who don’t offer service in French. There is a disconnect there.
Senator Gerba: You talked about compliance, Mr. Chair. You are talking about employees, but I believe that Air Canada or VIA Rail occasionally uses subcontractors for suppliers and external partners. Does compliance apply to those people? Do you provide them with training on that?
Ms. Caron: We have about 1,500 frontline employees at VIA Rail; they are all VIA Rail employees — there is no subcontracting in that respect.
At our stations, there are third parties under contract that provide services to travellers. In that case, we have contractual agreements with clear official language requirements. They must post their services in both official languages, but also provide bilingual service to VIA Rail customers.
Senator Gerba: How do you ensure compliance with third parties?
Ms. Caron: The people responsible for managing the relationships with these contracted third parties do spot checks.
We also created a compliance list, so when they visit the stations, they make sure all the requirements are met, which includes the issue of contracted services. That’s essentially how we monitor compliance for those services.
Senator Gerba: Is it the same for Air Canada?
Mr. Rheault: Absolutely. For all contracted companies involved in passenger service, we follow up to ensure that there is available staff.
Take regional carriers, for example. Jazz is a regional air carrier that operates flights on our behalf in various communities across Canada. We make sure they meet the same obligations and that they have bilingual staff to serve clients in the language of their choice.
Over 75% of Jazz flight attendants are comfortable in both official languages. To meet those obligations on a flight, they also ensure they have people who can serve customers in the official language of their choice.
Senator Gerba: Are the complaints mostly internal, from Air Canada employees, or do you receive complaints from other partners and suppliers?
Mr. Rheault: Given the sheer volume, it affects Air Canada more, because we carry more passengers than our regional partners. It depends on the year.
We make sure that both we and our partners are in compliance with the law.
Our operation is more complex than those of our regional carriers, with more aircraft, more flight attendants and more destinations around the world.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: You say that you check to see if the services are offered, but in concrete terms, how do you do that? Are there people in your organizations who do that? How often are services monitored?
Whatever regulations and laws we may have, the fact is that without follow-up or clear accountability mechanisms . . .
Can you tell us about these important mechanisms, which the regulations try to address, to a certain extent?
Ms. Caron: I would point to two mechanisms in particular. First, before leaving our maintenance centres, our trains are checked for compliance on a number of fronts, including official languages: Are the safety documentation and all the advertising in both official languages?
A compliance checklist was developed to ensure that our trains meet official language requirements.
Next, we conduct an annual evaluation of all frontline staff. This evaluation focuses on standards of conduct. We also assess whether employees actively offer bilingual service, in accordance with our legal obligations. This allows us to monitor compliance among our frontline employees.
Senator Cormier: Is their validation of active offer simply that they say they’re doing it?
Ms. Caron: A manager will check whether the employee is doing everything they should be doing. The manager is there to observe the employee throughout the trip or at the station; they conduct an overall assessment of their work. The assessment verifies whether the person is doing their job properly.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. What about Air Canada?
Mr. Rheault: The same applies to verifying aircraft compliance: We verify that signage on the aircraft complies with our official language obligations.
We have made changes in recent years, because the “EXIT” and “SORTIE” signs were still displayed. We are increasingly trying to use symbols for signage. The green figure walking out is an easier compliance tool to manage.
We have a staff assignment system to ensure that there are bilingual employees on every flight. After the fact, we check whether the system worked and the percentage of flights that were staffed with bilingual people or not.
This is a concrete way for us to ensure that the service is available. If there were flights during which it wasn’t available, we try to find out why. These are things we do as a matter of . . . We don’t just do it for flights, but at airports as well.
We also check the call centre wait time between calls in French and English to ensure that the wait time is always the same, regardless of your preferred language. We often find that the wait time for French calls is shorter because we receive more calls in English.
We continually remind employees of this requirement. For example, we incorporated an official languages module into our annual training to emphasize the importance of providing service in both languages. We also have managers at the airport who ensure that these procedures are followed.
Senator Cormier: There won’t be many sanctions in your case, if I take your approach at face value.
Mr. Rheault: That is our hope. We will work very hard to avoid that.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much.
Senator Gerba: Actually, Senator Cormier’s question also applied to suppliers. The monitoring mechanisms you refer to apply to Air Canada employees, but do you also ask your partners to apply them to services provided on your behalf?
Mr. Rheault: Yes; for example, we do this with our regional carriers, such as Jazz, and there are others that now offer services on our behalf in Eastern Canada, such as PAL Airlines. They are well aware of our obligations, and we ensure that they are fulfilled.
Senator Gerba: How do you monitor that? That’s the real question.
Mr. Rheault: Jazz provides us with the same reports on the availability of bilingual staff on flights. So we check with them to make sure that there are always bilingual staff members.
Often, it’s more complex, because some aircraft only have one flight attendant. You might say that it’s more complex and simpler at the same time.
When there are two or three flight attendants, there is obviously more flexibility, since there are always one or two who can provide service in French. When there is only one flight attendant on a smaller aircraft, we have to make sure that flight attendant is bilingual on routes with high demand, at the very least.
At Air Canada, we check staff assignments on all routes. Whether the route sees high demand or not, we always have at least one employee who is able to provide service in French.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your statements and answers to questions. Thank you for joining us tonight.
Were you able to cover all the topics you wanted to address with us before concluding? Yes? Then we would like to express our sincere gratitude. This concludes our second panel of witnesses.
(The committee continued in camera.)