THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, May 25, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5:01 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 Surette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I would like to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. Activation and deactivation will be controlled by the console operator.
I am Allister Surette, senator from Nova Scotia and chair of the Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Hébert: Martine Hébert from Quebec.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
I would like to welcome everyone with us today, as well as those listening to us online on sencanada.ca.
Today, pursuant to the general order of reference received from the Senate on September 25, we are studying draft regulations on the use of French in federally regulated private businesses. We are pleased to welcome today Lyne Chayer, Vice-President, Guest Experience and Vacations; and Tristan Joanette, Legal Counsel, from WestJet.
Thank you for accepting our invitation. You know the drill somewhat. You have five minutes for your opening remarks, and then we will have a question and answer period.
Lyne Chayer, Vice President, Guest Experience and Vacations, WestJet: Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you for inviting us to appear before you today. We thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the work of this committee, particularly its role in promoting French and English, as well as in enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities.
My name is Lyne Chayer, Vice-President, Guest Experience and Vacations, WestJet Group. I am joined today by my colleague Tristan Joanette, Legal Counsel at WestJet.
At WestJet, we call our passengers “guests.” This choice reflects our desire to create a welcoming, respectful and humane experience where everyone feels welcome. In the Canadian context, that includes serving our guests in French and English.
[English]
In recent years, WestJet has undergone significant changes. The integration of Sunwing Airlines operations into WestJet, completed in May 2025, transformed our network and expanded our presence in several markets.
[Translation]
The integration with Sunwing is a significant opportunity, but also a responsibility. It leads us to review our practices, harmonize our ways of doing things and improve the experience offered to our francophone guests.
In this context, WestJet has undertaken work to strengthen its French-language services. The work includes the flight experience, communications with our guests, some documents for the travelling public, services offered at airports and, more broadly, the entire travel experience.
Let me give you a few examples of the measures that WestJet has put in place over the past year to improve its French-language services.
We have taken steps to ensure that all Montreal-based flight attendants as well as those assigned to our seasonal base in Quebec City are bilingual.
We have also updated our procedures for on-board announcements to improve the place of French in the flight experience.
We have also updated our on-board menus as well as our inflight magazine to ensure that English and French content is presented with equal importance, appearance and accessibility. We have improved the technological experience in French, particularly on our website. In addition, we have improved service in French on our phone lines. We have also revised and improved our display procedures at airports.
Internally, we are continuing to develop new language policies, including a general language policy and a policy related to the use of technologies in French.
We are also continuing to work with our union partners to set up a French-language committee.
The work is not done. That said, our commitment is clear. We want to continue making concrete and lasting progress in order to better meet the expectations of our francophone guests. Francophone communities, whether in Quebec, Acadia, Ontario, Western Canada, the territories or elsewhere in the country, expect to be able to travel and interact with airlines in their own language.
WestJet would like to be a constructive partner in implementing this new regulatory framework, under the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and the draft regulations we are discussing today.
[English]
We also believe it is important that any regulatory framework in this area remains practical, flexible and adapted to the operational realities faced by airlines.
[Translation]
As we look to the future and WestJet’s growing needs for bilingual workers, we encourage this committee’s efforts to promote bilingualism across Canada, including by improving access to French-language education across the country.
We are proud to be here today and to contribute to the discussion. Thank you again for having us. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you for your opening remarks.
We will now move on to the question and answer period. I will ask our deputy chair to ask the first question. If you limit questions and answers to five minutes, we may have time for a second round of questions.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being with us this evening and thank you for your comments on what you have done so far.
How is WestJet concretely preparing for the implementation of the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, particularly in terms of the rights of francophone passengers and employees? Have you ever done an analysis of the discrepancies between your current practices and the requirements under the act?
Ms. Chayer: Thank you for the question.
For a year now, our company has been undergoing a real transformation. As previously mentioned, WestJet has acquired another airline, Sunwing, and integration has been ongoing since May 2025. As a result, we now have a base in Montreal, so we have bilingual flight attendants, pilots and co-pilots, and we also have a seasonal base for Quebec City. That was the first step in having a bilingual aircrew who can provide service in French on board our aircraft. We also worked closely with all the teams and really focused on priorities.
We prioritized everything guest-related to ensure that information was available in English and French for all our passengers across Canada when they are at the airports. On board our aircraft, all written material has been reviewed. Whether it be safety announcements, our on-board menus or the inflight magazine, everything has been reviewed so that from now on it will be provided in both official languages equally.
We have also reviewed our announcements, which are pre‑recorded, so that they are in French and English, to make the experience more fluid. The announcements are not just in English and then in French, but in both languages equally, so that our francophone guests feel welcome and that we speak to them in their language.
We then prioritized our internal practices, meaning our communications with our employees. We prioritized everything to do with equipment and technology, and we started developing a number of new policies to give our employees access to information in French. These efforts are ongoing. We know that the new regulations will take shape and that we will have two years to make everything available in French, but we have already done a lot of work and we are working internally with all our teams on raising awareness of the importance of the French language, but especially to ensure that our guests and our employees have access to French if they wish.
Senator Poirier: You mentioned earlier that the entire province of Quebec is [Technical difficulties] and that the service is offered across the country. Is it everywhere in the country or strictly where there are francophone minorities? In New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada, does Sunwing, aside from at the airports, provide that service in the language of choice at the moment, or is it an issue you are currently looking into?
Ms. Chayer: It’s ongoing. The Montreal base does not just cover flights leaving from Quebec. We can cover other airports. Currently, the majority of our bilingual flight attendants are in Quebec, but there are also some outside Quebec. It is part of our policies for future hires to always have bilingual employees assigned to the various airports. Right now, outside Quebec, we already have bilingual flight attendants who can be assigned to airports where there are francophone minorities, but the majority of our bilingual employees are based in Quebec.
Senator Poirier: What amendment to the draft regulations would you recommend to better reflect the realities of the air sector? Do you have any?
Tristan Joanette, Legal Counsel, WestJet: I can jump in on that question. We will have an opportunity, during the publication process for the Canada Gazette Part I, to provide more detail in writing on recommendations. I would say that there are a few things that could be improved. Overall, we are satisfied, because there is flexibility in the regulations for airlines. Let me give you an example. In civil law, there is a concept that does not exist in common law when it comes to employment, what are called “non-negotiable contracts.” However, if we look at the act, it basically says that a contract cannot be negotiated for employees and that the contract must be available in French. This is a concept that exists in Quebec civil law, but not in common law.
When this is implemented in the other Canadian provinces, it would have been preferable to specify in the regulations what is meant by a contract . . . . I apologize; I have no expertise in civil law and I am obviously a common law lawyer, but in the act as such, we use a term that should be defined in the regulations so that we can fully understand what the term “contract” means elsewhere in the provinces governed by common law.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: WestJet operates across Canada as well as internationally. Do you frequently receive complaints from francophones on board your flights who are not served in French?
Ms. Chayer: Thank you, senator. It’s funny, because we were just discussing that before coming to the committee. Since the integration of Sunwing and WestJet . . . . Of course, WestJet is a national company, but it was a little less established in Quebec before. We mainly served Western Canada as far as Ontario, so to speak, and also somewhat the Atlantic provinces, but we had very few truly francophone clients. Since we have had a base in Montreal and flight attendants who can provide bilingual service, we have seen a difference. We don’t necessarily have a lot of complaints about French.
It can happen. Some flights were run with an anglophone-only aircrew, so it can happen occasionally, but it’s not a recurring complaint. It’s really a process we’re working on for the future. In all our negotiations with flight attendants, there are now provisions requiring a minimum of two bilingual flight attendants on all our flights to provide service in French to our guests. There are measures in place and they will continue to be in place in the future.
Senator Moncion: Going back to the two bilingual flight attendants rule on board your aircraft, is that for any flight anywhere in Canada?
Mr. Joanette: Under the flight attendant collective agreement, when schedules come out, different routes are offered. The way collective agreements work is that the more seniority you have in the company, the more priority you have. However, for the two flight attendants, the collective agreement allows us to disregard seniority so that there are francophone staff able to provide the service.
Our collective agreement is being negotiated, so I won’t comment on the new measures that will be included in it. This is something that we take seriously. To provide service in French, there must be elements in the collective agreement that ensure there will be flight attendants who can provide service in French. That measure already exists in the current agreement, and there is a new measure being negotiated. That is what will be considered by the parties at the bargaining table.
Senator Moncion: To that end, the consequences of the current regime . . . . I’m sure you have to adhere to the new requirements. You talked a lot about Quebec, but where does the rest of Canada stand on the requirements of the regulations?
Mr. Joanette: I’ll start with a very personal answer. I am originally a Franco-Ontarian and am now a Franco-Albertan, so the French fact outside Quebec is important to me. I am always proud when I hear French on a flight. At the end of the flight, I think it is wonderful to have spoken in French. Many staff members speak French, but they are often shy to speak it. I always encourage them to do so.
Obviously, we are aware of the situation outside Quebec. I would say the main challenge, as my colleague mentioned earlier, is obviously the workforce. Minister Miller was here not too long ago and was open to the idea of investing money, but what he was looking for was targeted money that would have an impact. We recommend building French schools outside Quebec. I do not have the exact figure, but many rights holders do not have access to French schools. I think about 30% of rights holders go to French schools.
We ask the Senate to recommend that the government set aside money for the construction of French schools outside Quebec. The federal government has spending power. It should use its power to promote the construction of French schools. The Constitution provides for the right to have schools in the minority language where numbers warrant. That is often where the problem lies outside Quebec. If there were funding from the federal government, it could be encouraging and would give more people access to French schools. It would also provide candidates for companies like ours to hire and who could serve their clients in French.
At WestJet, a number of colleagues with French surnames no longer speak French. It always saddens me when I see that. When I said his last name, a colleague with a French last name told me that I pronounced it better than he did.
Therefore, our recommendation would be to make targeted investments in education.
Obviously, we make our own investments at WestJet. We have committees to promote French and we make efforts to translate. Most companies do that. Meanwhile, the government can invest in education. That would be essential to having a pool of bilingual candidates capable of providing service in French.
Senator Moncion: You’re in Alberta. You should encourage the provincial government, because it is responsible for the funding it receives from the federal government. You would have to approach the provincial government.
Senator Cormier: I’m curious to know how many WestJet flights depart from Quebec to designated francophone regions. How many flights are there, approximately?
Ms. Chayer: That is a very good question. I couldn’t tell you the number of passengers or guests. However, we have about six flights a day to Ontario and Alberta. That is the current figure.
Senator Cormier: For flights out of Quebec that go to Alberta or Ontario? Is that what you’re telling me?
Ms. Chayer: Absolutely. Obviously, flights always go back and forth, or usually. Currently, the main routes out of Quebec run between Montreal and Toronto as well as Montreal and Calgary. Going forward, the goal is to continue to grow to provide more affordable flights for Canadians so they can discover the rest of Canada. However, that is the current situation.
Senator Cormier: I would like to understand how you deal with the language issue. Your head office is in Calgary. This is not a region identified as having a strong francophone presence. Therefore, it is not governed by these regulations. In concrete terms, what does that mean for the public travelling with you? For a flight between Montreal and Calgary, when the departure is from Montreal, travellers have access to service in both languages. In Calgary, how does it work?
Mr. Joanette: Under these regulations, flights departing and arriving in Quebec are covered, as well as flights departing and arriving at destinations where there is determined to be a strong francophone presence. Fredericton, Moncton, Timmins and North Bay would be covered as well.
Actually, it’s not WestJet that has an obligation to offer services in French, but the airport authorities. That is already an obligation under the Official Languages Act. Those obligations are transferred to the airlines for check-in counters. A passenger leaving Ottawa, for example, which is designated as a region with a strong francophone presence, would have the right to be served in French both at the airport and on the flight from Ottawa to Calgary and once they arrive at the Calgary airport. However, all of this is provided for under two different legislative regimes: the inflight portion, under the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, and the airport portion, under the Official Languages Act. The latter is not a direct obligation to WestJet, but is imposed by airport authorities.
Senator Cormier: I always ask the same question about consistency. If you travel across Canada, depending on the airline and how you travel, you sometimes have access to services in the language of your choice, in this case, French. Would you be in favour of uniformity so that all carriers can ensure that passengers can travel across the country and be served in the language of their choice? That is my first question.
I’ll ask you my second question right away. In Quebec, are you registered with the Office québécois de la langue française, the OQLF? What is your status in Quebec in relation to the OQLF and in relation to these new regulations, this new act?
Mr. Joanette: I can answer the second question about our registration with the Office québécois de la langue française. The integration between WestJet and Sunwing occurred in late May 2025. We are approaching the end of May 2026. Registration is imminent. It will happen this week. In Quebec, this is new. Federally regulated businesses must register. If there are a certain number of employees for a six-month period and afterward, they have six months to register. For WestJet, the deadline is the end of the week. WestJet will register with the OQLF. After that, when these regulations come into force, WestJet will register with the federal government and will no longer be subject to the OQLF.
Senator Cormier: What makes you choose one over the other? I believe it’s possible to choose in Quebec. How is that determined?
Mr. Joanette: The standards aren’t identical, but they’re fairly similar. Since we’re a national carrier, it’s simpler for us to be under a single authority rather than dealing with various regulatory authorities. That is why we want to register with the federal government. Currently, we register in Quebec, then we transfer everything over. If the act and regulations had already been in force, we would have registered directly with the federal government. But for now, we have to make a small detour through the OQLF.
Ms. Chayer: I would like to add a comment. Before being acquired by WestJet, Sunwing Holidays already had an office in Quebec. We had nearly 200 employees and were already members, so we have our OQLF certificate. We are thoroughly familiar with the laws and apply them strictly, whether for outdoor signage, communications, technology and so on. That is why we are going through the same process now that WestJet has over 50 employees in Quebec. However, we were certified by the OQLF from the outset. For us, it’s simply a matter of adding another company, but within the same group.
Senator Henkel: Welcome.
In several regions covered by the regulations, companies are already reporting labour shortages. For WestJet, is the main issue the desire to serve customers in French, or simply the actual ability to recruit enough bilingual employees?
Ms. Chayer: I would like to come back to what my colleague said earlier. Having more French-language schools so that more people can study in French in more regions would help provide a larger pool of bilingual candidates for us to hire.
The desire is there right now. For us, complying with the new regulations isn’t an obstacle. It’s part of our drive to offer the best customer experience possible. That’s really what WestJet is all about. To provide the best customer experience, we know full well that we need to offer our services in the language of choice for our guests. This is part of our drive and everything we are currently implementing. We won’t hide the fact that there is a labour shortage in many regions — particularly a shortage of bilingual staff. So, we’re working hard.
Senator Henkel: Have you targeted regions where you believe the workforce is not sufficiently bilingual? Is that known?
Mr. Joanette: That is known and already poses a challenge. Take airports, for example, where language obligations also apply to security services. Other airlines will also have to comply with these obligations. Finding staff is a real challenge.
At WestJet — an airline based primarily in Western Canada — this is clearly a concern. We will collaborate with schools to try to find candidates as soon as possible. There are universities in Calgary, such as Mount Royal University, which offers an aviation training program. We’re looking into possibilities in that area.
Obviously, we want to explore a number of possibilities.
Senator Henkel: When he appeared before our committee recently, Minister Miller was very clear that no additional funding would be allocated, particularly for language training.
So, given that there is a real labour shortage, particularly for bilingual workers, and that this won’t be resolved overnight, have you considered — while waiting for access to schools or education — hiring people who are already qualified to work?
Have you thought about investing — because this is truly a competitive and strategic investment — in creating your own language institute to speed up the process?
Ms. Chayer: Actually, that is part of the company’s francization process. We’ve been proceeding in stages. We’re currently in phase 2. We are indeed considering offering courses, or at least developing a partnership with external schools that could assist us.
I would say that, at the moment, there are even reassignments taking place. We have offered reassignments in different regions to certain employees. It’s not always easy to relocate a family. However, we really are exploring all possibilities in order to find solutions.
We’re really taking it step by step. We’re proceeding according to our priorities and our resources — both human and financial — so we can put all this in place. Those are aspects we’re currently discussing internally.
Senator Hébert: In fact, my question was exactly along the same lines as Senator Henkel’s.
On the issue of francization, I understand the need to invest in French language training and I support it. However, that doesn’t mean that these people, even if they’re trained in French, will go work for you.
That’s why francization initiatives within companies are an interesting avenue. By the way, do you already have programs in place in Quebec regarding workplace francization? We know there are already grants and programs available through various departments and agencies. I’m thinking specifically of the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. Do you already have a framework for this within your company?
Ms. Chayer: Thank you for the question. Not at the moment in Quebec. All of our employees in Quebec are currently bilingual. That is among our hiring criteria. We made the decision, almost five years ago now, to set up shop in Laval, the second-largest city in Quebec, where we knew there was an increasingly bilingual population. We chose to relocate and establish our business where there was a critical mass, so to speak, from which to hire bilingual employees.
Then the pandemic hit. We won’t deny that this opened other doors for us, because previously, we hired people to physically come to our offices, whereas now, we hire our employees and allow them to work remotely from home. That helped us recruit from all over Quebec and elsewhere — but mostly in Quebec — and hire bilingual people. I’d say we’ve found other ways of doing things.
Yes, we’re reviewing programs and have already had discussions, but so far, we haven’t relied on grants or external funding.
Senator Hébert: Is this a recommendation you would like to see, namely that, following adoption of the regulations, francization measures should be implemented in other provinces?
Based on what is currently being done in certain provinces such as Quebec, would you support that recommendation?
Ms. Chayer: Honestly, I’m inclined to think so. I think it’s an excellent idea. It would be a great help to us as an employer to recruit people who, initially, may only speak English, but if we have a training program or a partnership, that could certainly help us.
As my colleague mentioned, we’re already facing hiring challenges. So, recruiting on a broader scale — not just in one or two provinces — will certainly present some challenges, but we’ve already started the process. Since May of last year, we’ve been working within a committee. I always joke that francization has become my full-time job.
It is truly important, and the beauty of it is that at WestJet, we have senior management’s support to ensure we deliver an impeccable customer experience, both in English and French.
Senator Hébert: Mr. Joanette, you said earlier that you would submit written comments once the regulations are published in the Canada Gazette. We know that when it comes to regulations, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as the old saying goes. It’s always easier to influence things before publication than after.
In the current draft regulations, are there certain provisions that are essential and must be retained, and others that absolutely must be added?
Mr. Joanette: To return to my previous comment, I found the term “contract of membership” in the law. This is a term in Quebec civil law that does not exist in common law. Therefore, it would be helpful if the regulations defined what is meant by “contract of membership” so that it is clear to other provinces, given that this concept does not exist in common law. That might be a recommendation worth making.
As for the creation of the francization committee, I believe it has a different name — the French promotion committee. Half its members must be appointed by the employer and the other half by the employees.
Obviously, WestJet is a large company with several unions. The regulations do not provide any clarification on how employees should choose their representative. The Quebec French Language Charter does provide details. For example, when there are several unions, it states that they must meet and decide who will be their representative.
In our experience, that may not be the best approach. It may be easier if each union chooses its own representative. In any case, there are different approaches. Currently, there is no provision for this in the regulations, but that doesn’t mean it is inappropriate. The minister could subsequently establish guidelines and provide further details.
Of course, regulations are always open to clarification and additions, but at the same time, leaving them open gives the ministry the required flexibility to provide further details in guidelines. Here are a few quick points.
The Chair: Thank you. When the question was asked earlier, I found it interesting that you called for more French-language schools outside Quebec. We shouldn’t forget immersion schools, which also do an excellent job, and the fact that there are more students in immersion programs than in regular French programs.
As a company, it doesn’t seem to be a problem for you if the regulations are adopted or the law is passed. Have you conducted an analysis of the costs this would entail for your company? I know there is still time, as the timeline outside Quebec is two years. Have you conducted a comprehensive analysis of the operational implications?
Mr. Joanette: I’ll give you a brief answer, and then my colleague can expand on it. We’ve been preparing for this for a year now. Obviously, there’s an Excel spreadsheet — as you can imagine — with a large number of items.
There are certain items we’re reviewing. We haven’t quantified each of them. Perhaps that’s something we could do moving forward, without getting too far into the details of how things work at WestJet. Each department has its own budget, and we’re asked to meet our obligations within those budgets. Will there be a need to review the budgets and examine all of this? Certainly. We haven’t quantified each item and determined what the grand total will be, but we have a list of tasks to complete. Quantifying the items might be the next step.
Senator Poirier: Thank you — that’s very interesting. Labour recruitment is certainly a challenge, not only for WestJet, but also for many companies across Canada, especially in minority-language communities, including schools looking to hire francophone teachers. It’s a real challenge.
I have a good example. I was raised in an English-speaking area, in a French-speaking family, and I had to attend an English-language school. I learned to read and write in French later on. There is certainly still a ways to go.
My question follows up on Senator Surette’s question. In your opinion, should the federal government offer financial support to help businesses during this transition? If so, why and how?
Ms. Chayer: That’s an excellent question. We haven’t determined how much the company’s francization will cost us overall. We’ve been working on a department-by-department and priority-by-priority basis.
We’ve already invested in certain software and expanded our team — take translators, for example. Currently, seven employees are translating for us full-time, whether for communicating with our guests, internal communications, advertisements and so on. We really had to expand this team to meet the needs related to mobile apps and websites. Obviously, there is a tremendous amount of Canada-wide communication in a company like ours. So we’ve already made investments.
Would financial assistance be helpful? Certainly. I don’t think any company would ever turn down financial assistance, but it would depend on the extent and nature of the assistance provided. Of course, we are already investing heavily internally and will continue to do so in the coming years, because if we want to deliver everything we are required to deliver within two years, as per the regulations, we will have to continue investing in our various efforts.
Senator Poirier: Do you already have a system in place so that your employees can receive bilingualism training? Is that something you offer? If not, would that be a solution? You could hire a private sector company through which employees could take training to become officially bilingual. Does such a thing exist?
Mr. Joanette: That’s not something that currently exists at WestJet. It’s certainly something we’ll be very interested in over the coming months and years.
Obviously, there is a cost associated with all of this. We view it as an investment, because it’s important for us to offer service in French. We serve francophones across the country, so this is an important investment for us.
If government support was available, I would say it should be invested in such programs. If the federal government and the department could include resources in their platform to help businesses, and if we could use them to train employees, it would be quite beneficial.
Of course, the school situation won’t change overnight. It takes time to build schools and train the next generation, but we continue to work every day. Certain programs will need to be reviewed. Any government assistance — whether direct funding for these programs or funding provided through tools available on its platform that businesses could use to train their employees — would be welcome.
Senator Moncion: My question concerns administrative monetary penalties. Are we in agreement that WestJet will never be penalized for failing to provide services in a particular language — for example, to francophones?
Mr. Joanette: There will not be any administrative monetary penalties, but other measures and provisions in the act and the regulations apply, including Parts IX and X of the Official Languages Act.
The commissioner can conduct investigations on her own initiative. She does not need to wait to receive a complaint from a passenger. She has a wide range of investigative powers, and at the conclusion of an investigation, she issues a report with recommendations. If the airline fails to follow these recommendations, she may issue an order that can be filed with the Federal Court. An airline has no choice but to comply with a Federal Court order. Failure to comply with a Federal Court order is quite detrimental to an airline. There are no administrative monetary penalties, but mechanisms are already in place to ensure that airlines subject to the act and these regulations fulfill their obligations.
We are talking about investments and money. Any money that leaves WestJet — especially to pay administrative monetary penalties — is money that cannot be invested in training. This collaborative regime has teeth: You will be subject to a Federal Court order, with consequences for contempt of court if you fail to follow the recommendations. It is quite serious. Airlines will have to fulfill their obligations.
There is a good balance at present. This system is new, and it will allow businesses to collaborate. Some aspects of the regulations are perhaps unclear. Rather than using administrative penalties to define them, we can collaborate, do the work, receive recommendations, and change our practices. All of this will foster a spirit of collaboration with the commissioner and the minister, rather than a reliance on administrative monetary penalties. This is common in other regulatory frameworks, but in this case, I believe it will ensure a good balance of collaboration, with more stringent measures as a last resort.
Senator Moncion: If you compare to Air Canada, which is subject to the act and will likely face financial penalties, do you think there is a sense of fairness? Do you think it is fair to have a situation where two airlines serve a customer base that is often the same but subject to two different regulatory frameworks?
Mr. Joanette: It is not the same, but I think it’s fair insofar as WestJet is very different and operates under very different circumstances than Air Canada. Air Canada is a former Crown corporation. Air Canada has been subject to the official language obligations for a long time. This entire regime is new for WestJet and the other airlines.
Everything can be reviewed. We understand your concern about the lack of administrative penalties. It is worrisome, because one wonders whether companies will truly meet their obligations. This could be reviewed later, but I can assure you that the current balance — a balance of cooperation with teeth — will foster a strong partnership. In a few years, if we find that there is still work to be done, we may give the law and the regulations more teeth.
All of this is new for the air carriers. It will take time. This is a blueprint for society. If we start with administrative penalties, it will not create a good environment for businesses to work collaboratively with the government to achieve the same objectives, which are to serve our passengers and employees in French.
Senator Cormier: First of all, I’d like to congratulate you, as you clearly have a good understanding of the Official Languages Act. Well done!
I am going to talk to you about Part IV, on services and communications, and Part V, on the language of work.
However, before discussing these elements, I would like to address the criteria for determining which regions have a strong francophone presence. The main criterion is numerical, not institutional vitality or the quality and diversity of the French spoken there. For example, in Toronto, there are several French-language schools, there is TFO, and there are French-language organizations. From a business perspective, you are not required to offer service in French in Toronto, since you are not subject to this regulation. This means that if I am a francophone in Toronto — and there are many francophones in Toronto — I will not choose WestJet, but rather Air Canada, because they are required to serve me in both official languages.
In your opinion, should the criteria be revised to take into account the institutional vitality of the francophone community in these regions? There are many examples across the country that can also serve as case studies for you. If you have no obligations, your guests are under no obligation to go to you. I would therefore like to hear your thoughts on this very important issue: the criteria for determining which regions have a strong francophone presence. You mention the importance of schools, and there are places where there are francophone schools.
Mr. Joanette: The government has decided to use quantitative rather than qualitative criteria. I now live in Calgary. I go to the grocery store and sometimes hear French spoken there, as well as in other stores, but the concentration of francophones in this region is not large enough. So it is not designated as francophone.
For airlines, in Edmonton, for example, there is a part of the city that will be designated as having a strong francophone presence. Given how the way the regulations and the act are currently worded, if the airport is located in this zone, there is an obligation. If the airport is not located in that zone, the obligation will not apply even if one part of Edmonton is francophone. The same applies to Toronto. If that area is not where the airport is located, the obligation will not apply. These are the obligations. Of course, we always want to try to serve our customers in the language of their choice, and we will continue to make every effort to have bilingual crews.
Take the example of Timmins. There is a Calgary-Timmins flight; the airport would be located within the designated area, and in that case, the obligation would apply. So, unless the airport is within the designated area —
Senator Cormier: I am sorry to interrupt, but I would like to ask a second question.
Part IV of the act deals with services and communications. The provinces and territories, as well as the federal government and its institutions, are required to provide services in both official languages. The same applies to Part V, which deals with the language of work. However, the regions with a strong francophone presence that are designated will not be the same when it comes to obligations under the Official Languages Act. This means that, in a given region, the federal government must provide its services in both languages, but in that same region, you do not have this obligation because the region is not designated as having a strong francophone presence. Shouldn’t there be alignment between Parts IV and V of the Official Languages Act and this regulation, which could standardize the delivery of services in French in specific regions?
Mr. Joanette: Yes, we would be in favour of better harmony. It will be up to the government to decide what needs to be done.
The problem for airlines is that it creates confusion among the public; passengers become frustrated during the flight if they expect service to be offered in French but it is not. This frustration is not good for airlines, since expectations are raised and there is disappointment if those expectations are not met. Therefore, better harmony would allow travellers to have clearer expectations, and there would be no frustration when the service is not provided.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Henkel: I would like to ask you to respond as succinctly as possible, since I have two questions for you.
You just said something that caught my attention. You spoke about the frustration of the public, who do not know how this works and are not familiar with these regulations and laws.
In situations where you are required to serve the travelling public but the service cannot be provided in French, have you implemented any form of communication to notify the customer, whether on the website or in the documents they receive? This notification is just as important as any other and states: “Please be aware that service cannot be provided in French.” That is an example.
Mr. Joanette: In fact, it is an obligation under the regulations to post a notice stating that the service is available in French.
Senator Henkel: Or is not.
Mr. Joanette: Or is not.
Senator Henkel: Yes, I would say, “or is not.”
Mr. Joanette: Yes. Obviously, WestJet would like to change this practice, to ensure that, once you have boarded, an announcement is made —
Senator Henkel: I would say even before —
Mr. Joanette: Even prior to check-in.
Senator Henkel: Do you do that already, or are you considering it?
Mr. Joanette: We do not do that. To my knowledge, no airline does.
Senator Henkel: No, but you can innovate.
Mr. Joanette: Of course.
Senator Henkel: There is nothing stopping you from innovating.
Every time, I am very frustrated to see that the French language is viewed as a constraint, rather than just the way things are. This country has official languages, so we should be served in one of the official languages. Let me continue my thought — and I’m coming back to you, because I am talking to you. It is an added value; that is how I see it. We have been talking for a while now about costs, operating expenses, language, recruitment, opening schools — all of that is long-term. However, why not here and now. It is an investment, as you said, but an investment that will pay off.
Let me give you an example. You know, the young man who sang O Canada a little in French — with just one sentence in French — was flooded with hundreds of thousands, even millions, of congratulations. Imagine the reaction of travellers if they knew you put in more effort than any other airline, since you now cover the entire country with Sunwing. So, French should be seen as an added value; you should place more emphasis on it and not wait for the government to provide financial support. That is my frustration. We are forced each time to wait for something to happen, whereas I would like airlines like yours to truly see all this as an added value.
Mr. Joanette: To give a brief response, we are both francophone and we are proud of our French language. Our president and our CEO speak French; they are both from Europe and are well aware of the realities of multilingualism. They understand it is an added value.
We sent communications to our employees throughout the year to remind them of the importance of the French language and to express how proud we are to be a national carrier.
So, it is important at WestJet to view this entire regulatory framework not as a constraint, but rather as an added value for the company. This comes from the very top.
Ms. Chayer: If I may have the last word, this is part of our core values.
That is what we have been implementing for over a year now — ensuring we are always able to provide service in French, not only on board our aircraft, but also in call centres and at airports. Senator Moncion has left, but we were talking about fines a little earlier — we don’t need fines at WestJet; it is part of our values, it is the service we want to provide. We are therefore very aware that the better our customers are served in their own language, the more loyal they will be to us. We are absolutely committed to building customer loyalty to our brand. This is one of the ways we know we can achieve that.
Senator Henkel: It is one way to stand out. It is just as important for employees when it comes to identifying with a company. Do you have any idea what percentage of your employees are bilingual or French-speaking? If not, no problem.
Ms. Chayer: We tried to get the information before coming to the committee. Unfortunately, we do not have any specific figures. There are 16,000 employees at WestJet, so we do not have exact numbers. We started conducting surveys this year among management, but we do not have any official figures yet.
Mr. Joanette: Here is the challenge: When we ask people if they are bilingual, some say no, but they do speak a little French, so it is difficult to get an exact number. We conducted a survey with different categories; we asked about the participants’ oral and written skills because we really wanted to get a clear picture of the situation. There are changes to our human resources systems, and we will be able to incorporate this information. This is something that is important to us, of course, but it is complicated because we want to make sure we fully understand the actual state of French. If we ask employees if they are bilingual, the numbers might be lower than they actually are.
The Chair: Thank you for your opening remarks, thank you for answering our questions, and thank you so much for joining us tonight.
[English]
For our second panel, with us this evening from Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation and Communications, we have Derrick Hynes, President and Chief Executive Officer. Thank you for being with us tonight.
[Translation]
We also welcome, from the Canadian Bankers Association: Eric Prud’homme, Director, Québec and Atlantic Government Relations; and Christian Petit-Frère, Senior Legal Counsel, Legal and Risk.
[English]
If I understood properly, Mr. Hynes will be starting this evening.
[Translation]
Derrick Hynes, President and Chief Executive Officer, Transportation and Communications: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening, honourable senators. Thank you for the invitation to speak this evening. My name is Derrick Hynes and I am the president and CEO of the Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation and Communications or FETCO.
[English]
I will tell you the regret of my life is the fact that I cannot speak French. More on that later.
By way of background, Federally Regulated Employers – Transportation and Communications, or FETCO, is an employer association representing most of Canada’s major airlines, courier companies, maritime employers, railways, telecom firms and others in their capacity as employers. Our members are generally large employers, most with a presence across the country.
For the topic tonight, our members generally fall into one of three categories. The first are those covered by the Official Languages Act, and outside the scope of these conversations. Second are those who have voluntarily adopted the French Language Charter in the province of Quebec, in scope only for those obligations outside Quebec. The third are those who are captured by neither of these, but who may have operations in regions identified under these draft regulations, in scope for this entire conversation.
Tonight, I am here to discuss the recently released draft regulations under the act. In short — and this is my thesis for this evening — these regulations, should they remain unchanged, will impose concerning compliance, operational and employment-related burdens, particularly for those employers that are more national in scope.
The act, as defined in the draft regulations, would affect employers operating across the entire provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick, as well as specific portions of Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia.
For our discussions tonight, I will raise several key concerns that we hope can be addressed as these regulations go through a thorough review. Please note these are preliminary. Time has not yet permitted me to do a deep dive with my member organizations.
Our first concern — and this is really our primary concern — is that the methodology used to determine designated regions with a strong francophone presence is potentially too broad. Outside the province of Quebec, the thresholds used to make this determination are, we are concerned, too low. Our concern is there are regions of the country that will be captured for which there is not truly a significant francophone presence as of today.
A good example of this is in the province of New Brunswick. Should the entire province be subject to the act, as suggested in the draft regulations, I understand there will be anglophone portions of the province where the standard imposed on employers may be higher than the standard the federal government imposes upon itself. Though we may not have yet done a comprehensive review of each region, we worry the same may occur in other parts of the country.
In practical terms, these regulations will impose on employers a burden that will be very difficult to meet in the short term and, depending on the region, this may continue to be an ongoing challenge. This overarching concern informs the rest of my comments.
Our second concern is that the initial registration requirements under the draft regulations are onerous. While we can appreciate the government wants to measure and monitor, these registration requirements feel overly bureaucratic.
Our third concern is that the establishment of a workplace committee with prescribed meetings and mandatory outcomes feels unnecessary for an obligation that is largely the employer’s to meet. Related to this, the certificate of generalization that the Minister of Canadian Heritage will issue in response to committee work, at this point, needs greater clarity.
Our recommendations are as follows: First, we recommend higher thresholds for designated regions with a strong francophone presence. We believe the government should consider higher thresholds for determining these regions and conduct a thorough analysis to understand specific regions where unintended consequences might occur if they are subject to the new obligations.
It is fair to say that meeting these new standards is going to be challenging in some regions, where the service to be provided may not actually be required. I point senators to the comprehensive list of obligations in these draft regulations that are imposed on the employers. It is our sincere request that we are certain they are being applied in the right locations.
Second, we recommend these regulations come with less bureaucracy. We appreciate this is a vitally important topic in the Canadian context, but we contend that the goals of this legislation can be accomplished with less red tape. We request that the registration requirements be streamlined, the requirement for a workplace committee be reduced in its reach and that more clarity be provided on what is required to achieve a certificate of generalization and the role of the minister in determining it.
Third, we recommend a longer coming-into-force period. These changes are going to require a major effort within the employer community. We ask for more time than the two years outlined in the act and the regulations. Yes, two years is a long time, but consider the following changes that employers will need to make: revamp all outward-facing communications to ensure proper translation; modernize recruitment efforts to ensure bilingual staff in all regions affected, both for customer contact but also for the supervising of staff; update all HR and workplace language policies, including training to ensure proper supervisory capabilities; replenish IT and related infrastructure to ensure bilingual capabilities; create a workplace committee, including its ongoing governance and activities; and report regularly to the minister in a manner the minister sees fit.
Finally, we recommend a reasonable-efforts test be created in conjunction with these regulations. We are concerned there are going to be challenges to meeting these obligations in certain regions of the country or in certain skilled work areas, specifically as it relates to finding bilingual employees. We ask for some flexibility here from the minister.
Before I conclude, I would like to reinforce a comment we made at this very committee when this legislation was first introduced four years ago. FETCO members support the protection and promotion of Canada’s official languages both within and outside Quebec. Our members support these concepts, both in communications with consumers and also in the workplace. What we ask today is that we do this right — to ensure regulations are practical, grounded in local realities and reasonably achievable by those responsible to implement. Thank you.
[Translation]
Eric Prud’homme, Director, Quebec and Atlantic Government Relations, Canadian Bankers Association: Good evening. My name is Eric Prud’homme. I’m the director of Quebec and Atlantic government relations for the Canadian Bankers Association, or CBA. I’m joined today by my colleague, Christian Petit-Frère, senior legal counsel at the CBA. We would like to thank you for this opportunity to discuss the draft regulations on the use of French in federally regulated private businesses. Before going any further, I would like to mention that the CBA will be appearing before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages tomorrow afternoon.
We welcomed the tabling of the draft regulations in Parliament by the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who is also the Minister responsible for Official Languages.
The CBA would like to point out that the banks understand the fundamental importance of Canada’s two official languages and that they make every effort to serve their clients across the country in the clients’ language of choice. They also recognize that francophone employees must be able to work in French when their workplace is located in a region with a strong francophone presence.
The banks have always endeavoured to accommodate their clients’ language preferences. In regions with a strong francophone presence — Quebec, of course, but also New Brunswick and eastern Ontario — the major Canadian banks already provide personalized services in French.
In addition, clients across Canada can access French-language services by telephone, online and through web platforms.
The banks have made massive investments in technology. As a result, now more than ever, English-speaking and French-speaking clients have a wider range of simple and practical ways to access financial products and services. These investments have visibly improved how banks communicate and interact with their clients and how they operate internally. No matter where they are, francophone clients can access certain banking documents in French.
Studies show that most consumers use digital banking services and banking applications and that these technological advances help them carry out their transactions anywhere in the country.
At the same time, traditional bank branches in both large and small rural communities remain an important part of the Canadian banking network.
The banking industry has a proven track record in providing products and services in French and in providing French-speaking positions in both Quebec and other parts of Canada. It would be reasonable for organizations such as banks to benefit from some flexibility when they apply language requirements depending on the nature, size and complexity of their activities, their distribution channels and the products and services that they provide.
We should also bear in mind that small and medium-sized banks wouldn’t have the resources that large banks could deploy to meet certain requirements. The banking industry is aware of the need to provide quality and well-paid jobs in francophone communities. It won’t hesitate to do so provided that qualified candidates are available to fill the positions. We see that very small areas in certain provinces are designated as regions with a strong francophone presence. In these areas, it may be even more difficult to recruit qualified candidates for certain positions. We recommend that future revisions to the legislation consider tightening the criteria used to designate an area as a region with a strong francophone presence.
With regard to human resources, our members support the grandfathering provisions. They nevertheless recommend a flexible application of the concept of supervising a francophone employee in a region with a strong francophone presence, based on the specific characteristics of each situation. Lastly, before the requirements come into force, it’s vital to set out a sufficient implementation period for adapting systems, training staff and hiring additional employees.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here. I have a question along the same lines as the one addressed to the other witnesses earlier.
The question is for all the witnesses. Are your industries facing shortages of employees who can provide French-language and bilingual services immediately [Technical difficulties]? If so, in your opinion, do the draft regulations establish a realistic balance of language objectives when it comes to workforce availability in Canada and can this be done within the time frame provided? You both talked about the two-year period. You don’t seem to find this realistic, so can you elaborate on this?
[English]
Mr. Hynes: Thank you for the question. There definitely are challenges recruiting bilingual staff in some regions, which we do consider to be one of the key challenges to complying with the regulations as they are currently written.
The spirit would be to comply fully, of course, and the hope would be that these regions would be fully served and employees’ needs would be fully met, and they could have the right to be supervised in French. Currently, I would say there are going to be regions that are captured by the threshold that is created under the act where that will be extremely difficult in practical terms.
So more time to prepare for that eventuality and, perhaps, a raising of the thresholds or a reconsideration of the regions that are affected by the regulations might be something we would be supportive of considering. Thanks.
[Translation]
Mr. Prud’homme: For the two-year period, we understand that this will apply first in Quebec. There will then be a two-year period outside Quebec. The big challenge lies in supervising francophone employees. This is already being done in some regions. However, it’s important to keep in mind the need for a flexible approach.
Various options are currently available to provide this supervision under certain circumstances, should the supervisor not speak French. These include translation services or documents already prepared by the human resources department. Bank employees can choose which language they wish to work in. For the big banks, the systems are already in place within the human resources departments. The employees choose their language and then receive documents in the language of their choice.
The major guiding principle of the banking industry — I spoke about employees, but the same applies to client service — is to serve banking clients in the language of their choice. We make every effort to ensure that clients are served in the language of their choice. There are various options in this area.
Senator Poirier: We often hear that it’s a major challenge to find bilingual workers to fill positions and to meet requirements. Have you calculated the costs involved in complying with the legislation? Do you provide in-house training for your employees so that they can learn both languages? Also, do you think that the federal government should help you financially so that you can provide in-house training for your employees if you’re having trouble with external recruitment?
[English]
The question is for all witnesses.
[Translation]
Mr. Prud’homme: Of course, this can pose certain challenges in some parts of the country where the French-speaking workforce is smaller. The first challenge is to find qualified workers. We’re in the banking business. We’re talking about long-term relationships with the clients. We’re talking about trust and the credibility of the institution. This is key. It’s already a challenge to find qualified employees. Throw in the fact that some regions have a limited pool of people who speak French, and it’s much more difficult.
That’s why, when it comes to applying the legislation — and today we’re talking about the draft regulations — we really need flexibility. We understand that the idea is to promote the possibility of working in French and to provide services in French. However, flexibility is needed. The banking industry, like all other sectors, has made major investments in new technology. We’re talking about $120 billion over the past 10 years. This is good. This actually opens the door to translation options in addition to services where an individual answers the telephone, meaning client services and telephone services.
Christian Petit-Frère, Senior Legal Counsel, Legal and Risk, Canadian Bankers Association: I’ll answer the other two questions regarding costs. Unfortunately, we don’t have the data to tell you how much all this will cost. However, I do know that, in 2025, the Canadian Bankers Association responded to a questionnaire developed by the Department of Canadian Heritage. This questionnaire included questions on costs. After this meeting, we could follow up and share this document with you. It contains cost estimates for training supervisors and recruiting bilingual employees. This could certainly give you an idea.
I know that the training issue has been looked at in other areas, such as labour law, where the government could develop training programs for employees. I think that it might be a good idea to develop training programs for businesses. This could help them.
Senator Poirier: Could you provide this information to the committee? It would be much appreciated.
[English]
Mr. Hynes: Yes. I largely agree with all of what my colleagues just said. We have not yet conducted an analysis, only because we were awaiting the draft regulations to see the implications and the impact and the depth of how far the obligations would go.
It would be our plan during the gazetting process to better understand that. At this point, I just hear from members who say, it is going to be big. I don’t know what that number is at this point.
Many of our members do provide training right now. They’re covered by the Official Languages Act. They are subscribers of the French Language Charter. There is a real interest in those organizations to promote the use of French, supervising in French and to have customer service available in French.
There are some challenges in the regions covered by this act where these obligations don’t currently exist. That’s where we will see some challenges, where there will be some new training opportunities required. Of course, employers would be supportive of government funding in this area to help accomplish the goal that I think we’re all trying to accomplish, and that is the greater prevalence and use of one of Canada’s two official languages throughout the country.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I’ll ask my questions in French, but you’re free to answer them in English, Mr. Hynes.
Don’t take my introduction as an accusation, but when you talk about a flexible approach . . . . The Official Languages Act has been in place since 1979. Entire communities have disappeared because of an overly flexible approach. We’re in the process of revitalizing the French language. We know that the French language is currently in a fragile position in Canada.
The banks are employers and they aren’t among the less fortunate in our society. You obviously benefit from the communities where you’re located. I would like to hear a clearer response regarding the threshold needed to determine regions with a strong francophone presence. Although some regions may seem small, in terms of institutional vitality, they represent a major force and they give you clients. It seems that raising the threshold is problematic, so I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Mr. Hynes, you spoke briefly about training. How are you, as an employer, prepared to promote the use of French by the employees of your banks and institutions, so that you can effectively provide services in both languages and, in this case, in French?
[English]
Mr. Hynes: Senator, thank you for the question. I’ll say that we’re largely aligned. I’ve spent the majority of my adult life working and living in Whitehorse, Yukon, which is not a French-speaking community, but there is a vibrant French-speaking community in Whitehorse. Both of my children went to bilingual schools. They are bilingual, and I couldn’t be more proud; I am not, which stinks. Also in Whitehorse there is a francophone school. There is a community that is vitality, to get to your point.
My concerns around the threshold are not so much about financial resources. It’s about what my colleagues said earlier. It’s about the time required, the flexibility required and the practical implications around finding staff.
The question we’re facing piece is probably less significant. My sense is that would be worked through more quickly. But with the piece around supervising staff, you may be in a locale where there are 50 employees, and 2 speak French and have a right to be supervised in French. That’s going to be a challenging hill to climb.
It’s not so much about the financial piece, which, of course, is always an issue, but about the time. So adopting a series of thresholds that allow employers to catch up, to be compliant and to be positive in the space, which we all want to be, is really the position we’re coming from.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: You did talk about raising the threshold for determining a region with a strong francophone presence. Your concern raises a quantitative issue.
[English]
Mr. Hynes: We have quantitative concerns, largely because — and you spoke of vitality. There could be other metrics that could be used to determine what regions of the country should be addressed by these regulations — 20%, and when we look at the math and the regions that have been identified by the ministry, there are specific regions where that number seems low. So it would be our sense that we could capture the spirit of this by maybe looking at other metrics beyond just a standard numeric metric such as 20%. You spoke of vitality, and that could be a piece we look at.
There could be places that are missed by these regulations where it could be quite logical that they apply. That’s the analysis that I hope we can go through as we go through the regulatory process.
[Translation]
Mr. Prud’homme: First, remember that inclusion and diversity, which includes language, are values that banks put into practice. We were talking about language policies in some banks, where these policies are already in place. There are also codes of conduct that address all these issues. In provinces such as New Brunswick, a part of Ontario and other parts of Canada, the banking industry currently provides French-language services. I said earlier that there had been a great deal of investment.
Another factor worth noting is that you’re talking about cultural vitality. The banks have programs that give them the opportunity to sponsor a variety of cultural events a bit —
Senator Cormier: Such as TV5 Unis in our area, for example.
Mr. Prud’homme: That’s right. Banks can be found all over Canada. The regulations don’t talk about this, but cultural vitality means having festivals that promote French or other cultural events.
Senator Cormier: I don’t want to interrupt you, but —
Mr. Prud’homme: Yes, sorry. Go ahead.
Senator Cormier: Does what you just described mean that the criteria that determine which regions have a strong francophone presence should be revised to take into account the factors that you listed and that have an impact on your clients?
Mr. Prud’homme: If we look further west, with the university campus, when we get into micro-regions and micro‑sectors, one of the extremely technical challenges is to implement processes or to change them in large organizations in a targeted location. There may be fewer bank branches in this region. However, there are some right next door, so we need to make sure that the branch next door can lend a hand for francophone clients. For francophones in certain regions facing a greater number of challenges, it’s possible to arrange an appointment and to bring in a translator or another employee from a different branch. That’s flexibility in a nutshell. In the banks today, people can obtain services in French, even outside Quebec, and they can work in French.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. I’ll end on that note. I know that I’ll be interrupted. That said, I must tell you that working with minority communities requires special measures at all times, and that’s the case here. So, new technologies are quite appealing. However, you pointed out that banks and individuals are in a relationship of trust and that in-person services remain the preferred option.
Mr. Prud’homme: Absolutely. I can confirm that, in bank branches, they remain a key pillar.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Henkel: Welcome, gentlemen. My first question is for Mr. Hynes.
Today, teleworking is blurring the traditional notion of the workplace. I’ll give you an example. If we take a federal company with headquarters in Toronto, but with sales representatives working remotely across the country, an employee based in Ottawa and a colleague doing exactly the same work from Regina or Calgary will have different language rights. My question is the following. How can you ensure a consistent application of language obligations when employees performing the same tasks work from different provinces?
[English]
Mr. Hynes: It’s going to be a challenge. Given the breadth and scope of the operations of the organizations that I represent, be they telecom firms, railways, airlines, et cetera, the situation you’ve just described is going to be the living reality under these regulations, and employers will have to adapt.
Harkening back to my point from earlier — and I think my colleague stated it in his points, as well — we do think there should be some flexibility, and we may need some time.
Senator Cormier — who has left the room — talked earlier about the Official Languages Act, or OLA, being in place since 1969. I have members who are covered by the OLA. It is a part of the way they do business. They live and breathe it every day. It’s just a normal part of life.
This new era in which we are moving — which I think is a very positive one — is going to be one that organizations and employers are going to have to adapt to, and they’re going to have to deal with the challenging situations that you’ve just described, where employees from different regions of the country will be subject to different expectations and different rules. Employers are definitely going to have to adapt to those circumstances.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: I’ll turn to you, Mr. Prud’homme.
I find one thing tiresome. When you talk to your members, is French mainly seen as an additional regulatory obligation, or do some institutions see it more as a benefit and an added value for attracting clients but also talent? If so, and I hope that this is the case, what financial incentives, and hence investments — personally, I wouldn’t call them expenses — do you know of? Perhaps some of your members are already offering certain benefits to show that actions promoting the use of French constitute a bonus rather than a burden, and that they aren’t punitive? Are there already incentives in place for employees, for attracting talent and even for clients?
Mr. Prud’homme: I’ll start with the first part of your question.
I didn’t get a chance to mention this to those who are less familiar with us: The Canadian Bankers Association represents 60 banks out of a total of 80 banks operating in Canada. Of those banks, about 40 provide financial services to individuals.
Competition exists, and being able to serve customers in the language of their choice is an advantage from the outset. Since you’ve been in business, I think you understand that. This allows people to move up the ladder and occupy positions at various levels across Canada. I give New Brunswick as an example because it’s the most obvious, but this is also the case elsewhere in Canada.
As far as continuing education is concerned, banks are employers that offer a range of training courses precisely to access other positions within a bank; over the years, at the professional level, it’s possible to take a comprehensive training program. French courses are one of them; English courses are another, of course.
To answer your question, that’s a very positive thing.
Senator Henkel: If all that is already in place, why is it so difficult to ensure consistent access to French, in the same way that English is accessible everywhere? That’s what I don’t understand. Why, with all these incentives, ongoing training and the talented people you’re seeking out, are we still not — regulation by regulation — able to serve those who wish to be served in French, regardless of the region, even in smaller regions? As you mentioned earlier, it might be a bit more difficult for a smaller branch.
Mr. Prud’homme: We talked a lot about services in French and about working in French outside of Quebec, but I’d like to return to the situation in Quebec.
For decades now, the majority of banks comply with the Charter of the French Language on a voluntary basis. This was done voluntarily — and banks under federal jurisdiction know it well. Banks implemented measures without any obligation; they were therefore pioneers, because they understood its importance. They also understood the importance of promoting inclusion and diversity policies. Language is a component of inclusion and diversity, because it also brings other dimensions.
Senator Henkel: Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but why is it so difficult to apply this everywhere, since the efforts, investments and ongoing training are already there? Why do we still not have access to French everywhere? I’m speaking about your members in particular. This is, after all, a large institution.
Mr. Prud’homme: I would say — I already mentioned it, but I’ll repeat it — that, on banking platforms, customers can choose the language they wish to use. We now know that 77% of banking transactions are done on a banking platform or on an app on a phone or tablet. Barely 10% are done in a branch. I can confirm that branches are very important, because major decisions are made there. Senator Cormier was talking about the personal interaction, which is important. Indeed, in call centres, bank clients are served in French in Canada.
After that, in some regions, if virtual or telephone services are not used — and those are exceptions — there’s about 10% left. In those cases, there are still measures that can be put in place, and are being put in place.
We’re now looking at a proposed regulation. We’re at the very beginning. We’re trying to understand how to apply all this to our members.
There is one important thing: Earlier, Senator Poirier asked what the government could do. What’s important is to support the companies that have to implement these new provisions, either by providing guidelines or by establishing a dialogue.
I’ll go back to the example of Quebec. Our members can engage in dialogue with representatives of the Office québécois de la langue française to fully understand the spirit of the act or the regulations. They can ask, “Is that how you want to apply these provisions?” If we were to make a recommendation today, it would be to ensure that we have that dialogue and collaboration, and get some guidelines from the federal government.
[English]
Mr. Hynes: I completely appreciate your frustration. This should not be a burden. This should just be simply a way of life in our country.
I have the privilege of travelling internationally for my job, and I can’t tell you how many times — particularly in Europe — when I meet people, they are shocked to hear that I can’t speak French. Their reaction is, “Well, don’t all Canadians speak French?” I’m disappointed to say that I don’t.
Across our membership, particularly, as my colleagues spoke about, those who do business in Quebec, those who are under the OLA and those who voluntarily signed the Charter of the French Language, this is a living, breathing part of their organizations.
The challenge that we’re up against is in these markets in the country where it’s going to be difficult to find bilingual staff. It’s not insurmountable, but that is the challenge of enacting these regulations that are before us, to get to the point that you have described, that this is not frustration and that it is just a normal way of life.
Senator Henkel: That it is an added value.
Mr. Hynes: Yes, 100%.
Senator Henkel: We do it for other languages in this country. Why don’t we do it for the French? That’s my point.
Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I’m trying to understand what this will change for your members in the regions.
If I take Nova Scotia as an example, Halifax is not included here. There are more francophones in Halifax than in the other regions of the province. There are two or three regions in Nova Scotia with a strong francophone presence. What would it change for you? The Canadian Bankers Association can go first.
Since you already offer services in French, apart from the workforce, which may not be such a big challenge in some regions, what will change with the new act and regulations? What will it change for your members?
Mr. Prud’homme: It has to do with training people. We have to find qualified staff. Banking is a specialized sector, after all. In terms of hiring in the banking sector, there are all the background checks, first of all, because you want to avoid anything related to money laundering, for example. That already excludes a segment of potential employees. That’s the first thing: training.
Then we do all kinds of forecasting. Our members are adjusting to the demand. At the moment, there are no regulations, there’s nothing; our members understand that it’s important to serve people in French and that their employees can work in French, but they also have to adjust to the demand — I go back to customer service. I was describing earlier the various distribution channels to offer banking services. It’s quite varied. So it is a matter of finding qualified people and skilled labour.
We would like to mention that we find the new measures regarding grandfathering provisions in the act interesting. We should not, especially outside Quebec, disadvantage employees who have been working for a long time, for example, in a supervisory role of a francophone employee. We have to respect the population as a whole and adopt a thoughtful approach. We, the banks, are good corporate citizens; we comply with the laws and regulations, but we like to understand how best to apply them properly to do things correctly.
Mr. Petit-Frère: To echo what my colleague was saying, we’re not here to belabour the challenges of implementing this law. Our intent is to comply with the act and regulations. Quite simply, there will be challenges, as we mentioned earlier. You asked what it will change for us. We have internal policies and procedures that need to be changed, and that takes time. We also need to train our employees on the new requirements of the act. Our intention is to comply with the act, but we want to make sure that it will be done smoothly.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Hynes, I assume for you it’s more pronounced in some of the francophone regions, if we’re talking about telecommunications or transport. No? Or is it the same challenges?
Mr. Hynes: It is similar challenges. When you look at the provision of customer service or the supervising of staff, the issues are around, as my colleagues stated, recruitment of qualified employees to do this work, bilingual staff, and the training of those who are currently on staff to meet the standard that will be required. But the issue, I think, is really going to be in those regions that are at the lower end of the threshold, where this will be a new obligation, and this will be a new way of working.
You spoke of Halifax. We have localized operations from our members in Halifax, where I would suggest, today, the entire working language of that workplace is English. To make this change, if Halifax were to be captured and to adapt, will require the time to get there.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but to your point from earlier, senator, it’s that there’s going to be time. Like my colleagues have asked for, we’re going to need some flexibility. We can all agree on the spirit and the goodness of this idea, but in some regions, it’s going to definitely be more challenging than others, depending on how the thresholds are set.
The Chair: I’m assuming 100% of your members are affected, are they?
Mr. Hynes: Yes. Well, to answer that more broadly, those already captured by the Official Languages Act, or OLA, no. They’re living and breathing this already. The French Language Charter in Quebec, not so much. It’s the regions outside Quebec where there will be some concerns, and even that will be localized depending on the region. The speaker earlier talked about this small region in Edmonton that’s captured in the map. There could be some complications there.
Senator Poirier: Just to wrap it up, both of you mentioned in your comments and answers, and also in the opening remarks, about the two-year time frame not being enough time and that you need more time. If I understood right, there are different reasons, but the main reason seems to be the recruitment part.
[Translation]
There are other reasons, such as internal policies. Both issues exist. When you say you need more time, how much time do you anticipate? Recruitment is a problem across Canada. We have had a problem achieving bilingual balance for years. How many years do you think it will take to comply with the obligations set out in the new act? If not two years, then how many? How do we get there?
Mr. Prud’homme: We welcome the fact that there is a longer time frame outside Quebec. We haven’t necessarily taken a position on a specific time frame. We do welcome the two-year period. However, it’s important to remember one thing: because we represent a number of banks, and some are smaller than others, our members don’t all have the same resources to implement these measures.
In summary, we welcome the fact that there is already a two‑year time frame, but we haven’t taken a position on it. We felt that this flexibility was important overall, especially when it comes to supervising a francophone employee. Finally, government cooperation is essential. We need that dialogue to ensure that, once the proposed regulations are adopted, they are applied properly.
Mr. Petit-Frère: We also know that there will be a formal consultation period for the proposed regulations. We are not in a position to tell you exactly what a reasonable transition period would be, but we may be able to share that with you during that formal consultation process.
[English]
Mr. Hynes: I also don’t have a number, and I don’t want to pick a number that leads to more frustration at this table. But to reflect on some of my colleagues’ comments, there’s an opportunity here for some creative solutions. Could there be some way of cascading these regulations out in such a way that regions that are at a lower end of the threshold may be given more time or that the minister or commissioner may be given some latitude to allow for some flexibility, for some forgiveness of employers who may not necessarily meet the threshold of the obligations within the set period defined by the regulations?
The worry is that we end up in a space where monetary penalties or some other consequences are being meted out when employers are really making their best efforts to comply and meet these important obligations. So that’s why, in our comments, we talked about some sort of best-efforts case where an employer could say to the minister, “Look, we’re really making our best efforts. Here are the things we’re doing to try and meet our obligations. We probably need a bit more time in this region or that region.”
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: In the same vein, we’ve been talking about numbers and time, but I have a question, because we’re all very interested in statistics and data, which are what enable us today to make appropriate changes based, for example, on the number of regions, small or large branches — I’m talking about banks — but I’m also addressing you, Mr. Hynes.
To both of you, if I were to ask you what might be a creative way to look at the pace of installation or action, let’s call it, do you have any sense, within your respective organizations, of which businesses are currently experiencing these challenges? What I mean are businesses that aren’t yet able to serve clients in both official languages, or serve them in French. Have you conducted this kind of analysis, even before the regulations came into force? You’ve looked at this in a number of regions, so we know it’s something that’s needed.
My question is simple: Do you know today how many branches, companies or banks — and you, Mr. Hynes, how many of your members — require more attention to address this issue? If we start from that point, it could help.
[English]
Mr. Hynes: The short answer is no, but to your point — and I agree with it — it would be a useful piece of information to have to make evidence-based decisions.
I feel as though even though this act has been around for a while, the regulations have just come. We’re now getting our heads around what the obligations might be as we go through this and what the gazetting process will be at some point. I think that’s the analysis that we, as those who will be affected by the act, need to do and that we need to bring to tables like this to discuss where the challenges will lie.
In an informal manner, I’m certainly hearing from members who are most concerned about those regions outside Quebec, outside of most of New Brunswick in the lower end of the threshold. I don’t think Ottawa is such a significant issue, but there are going to be certain portions where, clearly, work is going to need to be done to get there.
To quantify that at this point, no, but we should. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Prud’homme: We already have general statistics on the number of bank branches: There are more than 5,000 across Canada and more than 18,000 ATMs. The reason I mention this is because I was explaining to you that I chose my card in French, so when I go to Toronto and insert my card in the ATM, it appears in French. Those are significant figures, and it shows that people receive services in the language of their choice in the banking sector.
We have a working group, as my colleague mentioned. Once the draft regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, we will have 30 days to submit comments. We are currently gathering various figures. Our members are in competition, and their situations differ. We know that, for some banks — without naming them, of course — it is easier in certain regions, because some banks have many more branches, while others are in different regions. Historically, some banks have had a stronger presence in certain regions, while others have less.
We’re in the process of carrying out this exercise and trying to clearly identify the concrete technical impacts, and we’d like to be able to include that information in our brief — if I can call it that — or in our comments on the draft regulations. We are having these discussions internally to get a clear understanding of the potential impacts. Do you have anything to add?
Mr. Petit-Frère: I think you’ve said it all.
The Chair: That brings us to the end of our hour. On behalf of my colleagues, I thank you for being with us this evening, sharing your opening remarks and answering our questions.
(The committee continued in camera.)