Official Languages Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. Roy, can you give us an example of how difficult it is to be served in the official language of one's choice?

What are the consequences of that in terms of passenger rights?

[Liane Roy]

Thank you very much for the question.

I'm going to turn it over to one of our legal experts. Since there are a number of them, it happens frequently.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Lepage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Lepage, you're on mute.

[Roger Lepage, Mister, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Okay, thank you.

I'll give you an example. A resident of Regina was travelling a lot to see his wife, who was studying in Montreal. He didn't often receive services in French on Air Canada flights. He filed complaints on a number of occasions. He was discouraged to see that there was no improvement after the complaints were filed. It happened again and again, and he had the same issues on every flight. He had to initiate legal proceedings with the Federal Court and hire a lawyer. Penalties were imposed, but there was no improvement.

That's more or less what it costs to do business with Air Canada. The company thinks that it only costs $5,000 every time it violates language rights.

When it comes to a large company like Air Canada, there really aren't enough teeth. We're pleased to see that penalties will be imposed, but the FCFA believes that the penalties aren't high enough. The amount should be doubled, as some members have said.

Why not go up to $1 million? Deterrence has to be financial in nature.

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

Okay.

I now have a question for the representatives of Droits collectifs du Québec.

The Liberals caused a delay in the regulatory process, and this is about strengthening their own legislation.

Can you give us an example of traveller rights being violated during travel by land, sea or air? This is serious.

[François Côté]

We've seen that there are many instances where travellers at airports simply can't be served in French, particularly at security stations and in customer service.

A fat lot of good it does travellers if the website is bilingual and the signs on the walls are in French and English, but the staff are unable to respond to them in French, even though they are in need or having trouble. The respect for language rights simply isn't there.

The introduction of administrative monetary penalties is also particularly important. Currently, the Commissioner of Official Languages has the power to make recommendations and issue orders, but federally regulated companies can ignore them. A federally regulated company subject to the Official Languages Act can absolutely receive the report from the Commissioner of Official Languages and say that's very nice, but it won't comply with it. This has been tried before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Côté, I'm sorry, but the time is up. I gave you a few extra seconds to answer, but I have to stop you.

Mr. Dalton, thank you.

Ms. Chenette now has the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome our guests and experts here today to discuss this very important subject and regulation.

You mentioned the fact that the penalties are not big enough. You seem to be saying that it has to go up to $1 million, which is quite substantial. It would go from $50,000 to $1 million.

In our current reality, we're talking about penalties for repeat offenders. Wouldn't a registry be a better solution for it to be made public and for the media to take over?

The tarnishing of their corporate image is also harmful to the offending companies; it's not just the financial aspect and their sales figures.

Why are you focusing on the financial aspect? There are other ways to make difficult things that are not being done public.

My question is for Ms. Roy.

[Liane Roy]

Thank you very much for the question.

We understand that administrative monetary penalties are a last resort to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act. It's somewhat of a punishment.

The question is still whether the $50,000 fine is enough of a deterrent to prevent any further violations of the act. It could be if the penalties could be applied to each complaint. For example, if there were 10 complaints, the Commissioner of Official Languages could multiply the amount of the penalty by 10, so 10 times $50,000. That's what Mr. Lepage was alluding to earlier.

In this case, I will let Mr. Keyes take over. He's the expert on regulations.

Mr. Keyes, do you have anything to add?

[John Mark Keyes, Mister, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

As we said earlier, yes, the penalties could be increased in the event of several violations. Every violation could be subject to a penalty. However, there is still a limit to each of these penalties.

As Mr. Côté said earlier, for a company like Air Canada, even an increase in the number of violations doesn't amount to anything significant financially speaking. The limit could undermine the effectiveness of these penalties on large corporations like Air Canada.

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

Yes, our previous experts told us that it was up to the Commissioner to determine whether he imposed a $50,000 penalty for each complaint, based on the steps. So it can become significant if it is known. That puts pressure on the system.

However, you mentioned that it makes the Commissioner's job harder.

What are your observations on this burden?

How could we simplify that, while preserving the effectiveness of the system and compliance with the act?

If it's not managed properly, the risk of it being challenged would come at an enormous cost.

What do you think needs to be done to improve the situation and reduce this burden?

[John Mark Keyes]

I've gone through quite a few other pieces of legislation that deal with monetary penalties. I haven't yet found an example that has notice of violation procedures as complicated as those in these regulations.

For example, in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, there are regulations on monetary penalties. It says the following about notice of violation:

…names the person, identifies the violation and sets out (a) the penalty for the violation that the person is liable to pay; and (b) particulars concerning the time for and manner of paying the penalty and the procedure for requesting a review.

That's all it says about the details and content of a notice of violation. I have a few other similar examples that don't have the kind of detail the draft regulations do.

To give an example of complexity in relation to the notice of violation, subparagraph 6(c)(i) states that there must be “a list of all the criteria that the Commissioner took into account”.

The list of criteria is already set out in the draft regulations. Why is it necessary to mention all the criteria? What happens if the Commissioner doesn't mention any of the criteria? Will that nullify the violation or the procedure?

This kind of detail therefore opens the door to challenges and makes it possible to attack the Commissioner's decision. There are a number of other examples about the details.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Keyes, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the time is up.

Thank you, Ms. Chenette.

I now give the floor to Mr. Beaulieu for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many witnesses have talked about the burden of the tasks and the length of the deadlines. The regulations provide that a contravention committed less than one year after the date on which it comes into force is not designated as a punishable violation.

Do you agree with that?

How could the deadlines be shortened?

[John Mark Keyes]

It's normal under this regime to have time limits on contraventions and the related legal action. A one-year deadline isn't long. That's for sure.

In general, there are two-year limits in summary conviction cases in the criminal courts. That's normal for minor offences.

I don't know why we didn't adopt a similar deadline here of at least two years, instead of just one year.

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

How could the deadlines be shortened? It was said that the deadlines were too long.

[John Mark Keyes]

Is this about shortening procedural delays?

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

I'm talking about the deadlines for contraventions and procedures.

There are other things that could have been done. For example, Air Canada, which is a notorious repeat offender, can't use everything that predates the settlement. We wipe the slate clean, we start over and it takes at least a year before—

[John Mark Keyes]

Yes, we can speed up the process by reducing the administrative burden. The idea would be to limit the details to be provided in the notice of violation and adopt internal guidelines to achieve effectiveness when filing violations and prosecuting.

There are ways to do that, but putting all those details in the notice of violation in the regulations really risks delaying the process, especially when it comes to appeals and judicial review by the Federal Court.

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

It may already be in your brief, but if you have very specific measures to recommend, could you send them to us?

[John Mark Keyes]

The main recommendation would be to reduce the list of details that need to be included in the notice of violation.

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

It was mentioned earlier that the scope of the regulations had to be broadened. Canadian Heritage representatives asked that the regulations be applied to everything to do with airport security and that other institutions be added to the regulations.

We've been told that if the regulations are applied to a federal entity or a Crown corporation, it's as if the government were imposing a fine on itself. That wouldn't be effective.

We were also told that the powers conferred on the Commissioner with respect to orders and compliance agreements also apply to other types of businesses.

What do you think?

[John Mark Keyes]

I think it would be a good idea to extend the application of the regulations to other services, such as the Canada Border Services Agency, even if it's an agency entirely funded by the government.

This process draws attention to violations. It's not just a matter of imposing some kind of fine, but also a matter of publicizing the problems within the institutions.

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

Regarding the possibility of stacking penalties and monetary penalties, would you agree that it could be cumulative?

[John Mark Keyes]

Yes, of course. That would be a tool that the Commissioner could use to accumulate a good number of complaints and impose penalties for each complaint.