Official Languages Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2026

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

Mr. Rheault, I said I wouldn't raise a particular issue, but I found my example.

In 2023, a businessman by the name of Jean‑Pierre Beaudoin was travelling in business class, if I'm not mistaken, and, after settling in, he realized that the flight attendant didn't speak a word of French. Mr. Beaudoin asked to be served in French, but she refused and said she did not speak French. He insisted, and she came back with a security guard. Even though there were other flight attendants who spoke French, they supposedly couldn't serve him. He was given a choice to get off the plane or agree to be served in English.

You may not have been aware of this at your level, but I think it deserves to be penalized, because it's really unacceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

I would ask you to keep your answer brief because you only have 10 seconds left.

[David Rheault]

That approach really isn't consistent with our practices. In such cases, the practice is to go and find another flight attendant who is able to serve the customer in the language of their choice. This type of incident is always reported, and we meet with employees to ensure that kind of thing doesn't happen again.

I can assure you that that is not the service we want to provide to Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

I will now go to Mr. Bélanger for five minutes.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Rheault and Mr. Barbeau.

I want to start by giving Mr. Rheault a chance to finish his answer to Ms. Chenette's question.

[David Rheault]

I think I had a chance to answer that question when I responded to Mr. Beaulieu. We were talking about the FCFA's recommendations. They proposed raising the cap on fines and applying it to other offenders.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Air Canada relies on the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority as the first point of contact for many travellers. Given ongoing concerns about the offer of bilingual services at security checkpoints, what measures is Air Canada putting in place to ensure that passengers can receive services in the official language of their choice throughout their travel experience, including in areas managed by the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority?

[David Rheault]

The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority is an independent organization that reports to the government. It is therefore up to CATSA to put measures in place to ensure an active offer of service in the passenger's language of choice.

However, I know that organizations talk to each other and have groups set up to establish best practices. They learn from each other through dialogue. These things are done on a regular basis.

I won't comment on CATSA's record.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Since the regulations governing fines were put in place, have you been fined? If so, how many times?

[David Rheault]

It's not in place yet, actually. The regulations have yet to be adopted or amended.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Okay.

I'm told that 50% of your employees are bilingual. Is that correct?

[David Rheault]

For employees who are in contact with the public, yes.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

How many complaints have you received in recent years?

[David Rheault]

In 2024-25, we received 85 complaints.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Okay.

How are you addressing those complaints?

[David Rheault]

That's a good question.

For each complaint, we look at what it's about, we look at the circumstances, such as the flight and the airport in question, and we try to identify the employees involved. At that point, the complaint is forwarded to the supervisors, who meet with the employees. We also try to get the employees' side of the story.

Of course, some complaints are a little more subjective. For example, when there's an interaction between a customer and a passenger, it can be difficult for the employee to remember, because our employees serve hundreds of people a day. In some cases, we actually receive the complaint three or four months later.

However, some complaints may be more objective. Yes, there have been times when translations were done poorly or not done at the same time, or when systems didn't work well in both official languages. We resolve those situations as quickly as possible.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Okay.

From what you've said, I get the impression that you're at a disadvantage compared to your competitors because of your official language obligations.

Can you tell me a bit more about that?

[David Rheault]

I must say that we don't see the service we provide in both official languages as a disadvantage. Ms. Chenette touched on this. We're proud to offer service in French across Canada. We don't see that as a disadvantage.

The harder part for us is that the government is creating a system in which we can be penalized for failing to meet the requirements. That creates a non-level playing field in terms of the cost structures that may apply to us but not to anyone else in the industry.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

That's exactly what I wanted to talk about: what it costs your organization to hire bilingual employees.

How many fully bilingual employees are you looking to hire? Is it always an asset to be fully bilingual, or does it depend on which part of the country?

[David Rheault]

Many of our employees are bilingual, but they don't necessarily speak French and English. For official language bilingualism among staff in contact with the public, we aim to hire as many employees as possible who speak French and English. For example, over the past three years, we have hired some 1,800 flight attendants; 1,200 of them are bilingual. When I say that they're bilingual, I mean that they have taken tests. To pass our test, they must be able to make an impromptu announcement in French on a plane without needing to read a text. There's a larger percentage—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Rheault, I have to interrupt you. I'm sorry, but we're out of time. Perhaps we can revisit this topic in a future discussion.

Mr. Villeneuve, I understand you're going to share your time with Ms. Mingarelli. You have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Good morning, gentlemen.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that efforts have been made.

I'll tell you quite frankly that I myself have filed a complaint against Air Canada because I wasn't served in French. I've had the opportunity to travel with Air Canada a few times over the past year, and everything went very well, so things have clearly improved.

When the FCFA representatives appeared before the committee in December, they talked about the cap on sanctions, which we've been talking about for a while now. They wanted it to be higher. My colleague asked a question about that, and I have another question.

What are your thoughts on the administrative monetary penalty regime that these regulations introduce?

[Marc Barbeau]

Do you want me to speak to that from a legal standpoint?

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

Yes, and there's also the financial aspect.

Can the commissioner issue one or more fines? What are your thoughts on that? You also said that you now provide service in both official languages and that everything is going well, which suggests you're not as worried about being fined.

[Marc Barbeau]

Yes, absolutely.

First, in terms of our perspective on the regime, the same thing exists elsewhere. It exists in other federal and provincial legislation. So, from a legal standpoint, this is not a new regime per se. It has been tested in other jurisdictions. Since it's an administrative penalty regime, it doesn't go through the courts. It's administered by the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Then, for designated corporations like ours, the act removed due diligence as a ground for defence. For any violation of the act, we would not be able to demonstrate the efforts we've made to avoid such a violation.

Under the Charter of the French Language, by the way, that defence exists. It's a similar regime, but different in some ways.

So, after a violation of the act is ascertained, the next step is the penalty determination. The regulations include criteria that establish the conditions under which a penalty can be applied. Certain factors can affect the amount of the penalty, such as efforts to correct the situation, the nature of the offence and so on. It's not automatically $25,000, as set out in the act, or $50,000. The commissioner will have to say that they have determined an offence occurred and explain why they're asking that a fine of $1,000, $2,000 or $5,000 be imposed. We'll have to see how this plays out.

Should there be a $25,000 cap, as set out in the act, a $50,000 cap, as set out in the regulations, or something else? This has to do with the question that was asked earlier. In a way, you'll be able to see how it works as it plays out. You and the commissioner will see if it produces the results you're looking for.

As my colleague said, we hope we never find ourselves having to answer for a violation or, worse still, being penalized.