Official Languages Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you for your response.

I wasn't sure, but I thought that it was important to include international flights.

Many figures for the modernized act were given earlier. You'll excuse me if I didn't quite keep up, but I'll talk about all this anyway.

The modernized act states that penalties can be as high as $25,000. However, the regulations state that penalties may be as high as $50,000.

Why this inconsistency? Maybe I didn't quite understand.

[Julie Boyer]

I want to thank the member for his question.

I'm glad that you noticed this.

A type A violation involves an indirect service. The amount goes up to $25,000 because it doesn't fall under the direct control of the entity subject to the act.

However, for breaches of the obligations set out in part IV, which covers communications with and services to the public, the amount goes up to $50,000.

It seems that this stems from the comments received during the consultations. Some people emphasized the need to increase the amount set out in the act.

[Richard Léger]

This issue indeed came up during the public consultations.

As specifically set out in the act, this power was used in the case of the regulations.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have two minutes left.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Okay.

I understand that the act limits you to the travel industry. However, the four institutions in question aren't the only federal entities that members of the public interact with when travelling.

Why didn't you include the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority?

I think that you spoke a bit earlier about air transportation and the Canada Border Services Agency.

[Julie Boyer]

I want to thank the member for his question.

The Canada Border Services Agency is comparable to a department. It's an agency. The Commissioner's powers apply to the agency, which must fulfill its official languages responsibilities. It must comply with its official languages obligations.

The logic is similar for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, which provides airport security services. That said, it isn't the same, because it's a crown corporation. It's funded by parliamentary appropriations. It doesn't have any private sector revenue. It's akin to imposing an administrative monetary penalty on an entity, which must pay with government money, and then turn the money over to the receiver general. The money simply changes places.

When it comes to complying with the obligations set out in the act, the incentive is weaker than if the Commissioner were to issue an order or impose a compliance agreement.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Can we expect an improvement in terms of public safety?

People often have issues with airport security. It's a serious matter. When people travel, they're a bit stressed out. They're afraid of missing their flight. If security officers can't serve these people properly in their language, that poses a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

There are 15 seconds left. Please make your answer brief.

[Julie Boyer]

In 10 years, the act and its regulations will be up for review. This will be a good opportunity to assess and determine whether the desired effects have been achieved.

Parliamentarians can then decide if they want to go a step further.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve.

Colleagues, since we have time, we can proceed to a third round of questions if I shorten the speaking time proportionally.

There are three members on my list. These members are Mr. Dalton, Ms. Chenette and Mr. Beaulieu. I'll give Mr. Dalton two minutes, Ms. Chenette two minutes and Mr. Beaulieu one minute.

Mr. Dalton, you have the floor.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

I would like to thank the witnesses for their remarks.

As you know, I'm a member of Parliament from British Columbia. I want to make a quick comment. It doesn't exactly relate to our discussion, but it concerns the use of the word “unceded” when we talk about the situation at hand.

In British Columbia, the situation is quite serious. There are many concerns. I know that this word is used by public servants, but it's a highly sensitive matter. I understand a reference to traditional lands, but this pushes the envelope. When public servants and the government use certain words, it implies that we're in a serious situation.

The consultation process lasted two years.

Were any in‑house voices opposed to the imposition of penalties under the act? If so, who?

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you for the question and comment.

To answer your question, I would say no. The voices unanimously agreed that administrative monetary penalties were a good idea. All the people who took part in the consultation process talked to us about the possible options for these administrative monetary penalties.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

During our discussions, we heard comments about the lower capacity of municipal airports.

Are things looking up for small airports now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

There are 10 seconds left.

[Julie Boyer]

The small airports aren't affected. The airports subject to administrative monetary penalties are located in a capital or they have official languages obligations.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Dalton.

I'll now give the floor to Ms. Chenette for two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The modernized act sets out the role of Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board Secretariat. In the case of administrative monetary penalties, it's a bit vague.

Why did Canadian Heritage take the lead on these regulations and not the Treasury Board?

I was impolite. I forgot to welcome you.

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you for the question.

We didn't choose the regulations. They were imposed on us under subsection 65.4(1) of the act.

According to this subsection, the Minister of Canadian Heritage must make a recommendation to the Governor in Council on regulations for administrative monetary penalties.

I would say that the two other regulations, such as the regulations concerning the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, specify that Canadian Heritage is responsible for drafting the regulations.

Both the Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage are responsible for part VII.

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

Thank you.

We spoke earlier about the potential impact of a $50,000 penalty on large corporations. It's one thing to talk about a $50,000 penalty. However, it's quite another when that penalty can damage their brand as a good corporate citizen in terms of communications.

How often will the Commissioner report violations? Once a year, or throughout the year?

This would put pressure on companies to demonstrate good corporate citizenship.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have 25 seconds left.

[Sarah Boily]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, the Commissioner is master of his own procedure. He currently reports violations once a year in his report on the compliance of institutions subject to the act.

We gather that he would report any violations in this report. Recently, he changed his approach and tabled two reports during the year. The first focused on compliance, and the second on official language minority communities.

If he continues to take this approach, we can expect him to report on violations once a year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Ms. Chenette.

I'll now give the floor to Mr. Beaulieu for one minute.