Official Languages Committee on Feb. 5th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Welcome to meeting number 19 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the order of reference of November 26, 2025, we are continuing our study on the proposed official languages administrative monetary penalties regulations.

I'd now like to welcome the witnesses.

As an individual, we have Érik Labelle Westin‑Eastaugh, associate professor at the faculty of law of Université de Moncton, appearing by video conference. We also have three officials from the Canadian Airports Council, namely, James Bogusz, chair of the small airports caucus; Chris Phelan, senior vice‑president, policy, industry and government affairs; and Julie Pondant, senior director of communications. We have two officials from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, namely, Eric Fortier, general manager of corporate affairs, and Marc‑André O'Rourke, senior legal counsel. And finally, from Marine Atlantic Inc., we have Patti Merrigan, vice‑president of human resources, by video conference.

Once again, I want to welcome all the witnesses.

Each organization will have five minutes for their opening statements. Then we'll move on to questions and answers with the committee members.

Mr. Westin‑Eastaugh, you have the floor.

[Érik Labelle Westin-Eastaugh, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Moncton, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the proposed regulations.

Since I only have five minutes, I will get straight to the point. Overall, I believe the proposed regulations represent an important step forward in the implementation of the Official Languages Act.

That said, having reviewed the committee's previous meetings, I note that certain concerns have been raised about it. Three of these concerns seem to me to be the most important. First, there is the possibility that the maximum amount of $50,000 may prove insufficient to achieve the desired objective. Second, there is concern about the administrative burden of the program, which could unduly bog down the process and leave it open to legal challenges. Third, there is concern about the exclusion of certain entities that play an important role in the traveller experience.

Each of these concerns seems reasonable, but in my opinion, only the second and third warrant the committee's consideration of immediate amendments to the proposed regulation. The $50,000 cap may seem small when compared to the overall revenue of a company like Air Canada, but in my view, the relevant point of comparison is rather the activities carried out, such as operating aircraft. At first glance, it seems plausible to me that such an amount would be sufficient to bring about behavioural changes on this scale. That said, I find it regrettable that the government doesn't appear to have conducted, or at least presented, quantitative analyses on this subject to better justify the reasonableness of the chosen limit.

The administrative burden of the process is more concerning, particularly for the reasons raised by the Commissioner of Official Languages before this committee. In my opinion, it is not necessary to impose such detailed criteria for notices of violation. Well-established principles of administrative law already allow for review based on the rationality of a measure, while recognizing that the requirements for justification may vary from one context and case to another. That's why I don't believe that adding such detailed criteria significantly enhances the transparency or fairness of the system. On the contrary, it risks adding an undue burden to the work of the commissioner's office and opening the door to challenges based on purely formal irregularities. In my opinion, it would therefore be preferable to adopt a more flexible framework and allow best practices to develop as cases are handled.

Finally, the exclusion of the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority seems questionable to me, given the intensity of their interactions with the public and the fact that, according to the commissioner's annual reports, these organizations have received a significant number of complaints over the years. We have heard the objection that imposing a penalty on a publicly funded entity amounts to shifting funds from one pocket to another. It has also been suggested that compliance agreements may sometimes be more effective for federal entities. Nevertheless, in my view, this in no way diminishes the relevance of monetary penalties in the overall arsenal of available measures.

As section 65.3 of the Official Languages Act states, “The purpose of a penalty is to promote compliance with Part IV and not to punish.” So this is a tool designed to change behaviours and incentive structures, not to make organizations pay for moral reasons. However, despite their public funding, these organizations are subject to budgetary discipline, so monetary penalties could influence their operational priorities. In this regard, I think it is worth noting that the federal government already uses cost recovery and allocation mechanisms for internal services for a similar purpose.

That concludes my opening statement. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you very much.

Now let's move on to the Canadian Airports Council.

[Julie Pondant, Senior Director of Communications, Canadian Airports Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank the committee members for the opportunity to address them today.

My name is Julie Pondant and I am the senior director of communications for the Canadian Airports Council, or CAC. I'm here on behalf of the council and the 65 member airports that comprise—

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have the floor, Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I can't hear my colleague. When we switch to English, I won't be able to understand.

Is it possible to check the interpretation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Absolutely.

I'll ask the clerk to follow up on that with the team.

It seems the issue's been fixed.

Ms. Pondant, the floor is yours.

[Julie Pondant]

As I was saying, I'm here on behalf of the council and its 65 member airports, which comprise all of the airports that are subject to the Official Languages Act. I'm speaking today about the proposed regulations to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties in the event of violations of this act.

Canadian airports subject to the Official Languages Act are strongly committed to providing the highest levels of customer service, including services to travellers in both of Canada's official languages. In fact, several small airports recently wrote to the Minister of Transport asking for assistance in better complying with the Official Languages Act. Airports want to fully comply with their obligations under the act, but the penalty regime proposed by the government won't help airports comply with the regulations. It will only financially penalize those who fail to meet certain requirements.

The CAC submitted a brief during the pre-consultation phase of these regulations. Among our recommendations was a request that this regime apply only to airports with more than four million passengers per year. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to recruit qualified bilingual staff for customer service positions at competitive salaries. In many small communities, and particularly in the airport environment, the main competitor for bilingual talent is the federal government.

The CAC also has serious concerns about the timing of the implementation of these regulations. The council is currently involved in a case before the Supreme Court of Canada. This case will determine the entities covered by the Official Languages Act and the requirements they must meet. So, although the regulations define the penalties to be imposed, the exact obligations of airports remain unclear and must still be clarified by the courts. To put things in context, 150 million passengers passed through Canadian airports in 2024, and only 77 complaints were filed nationwide. In a frontline service sector, it is always difficult to achieve perfect compliance at all times.

Language rights are of fundamental importance, and airports are fully committed to them. Therefore, rather than punishing airports when certain situations do not fully meet the requirements, we would like to see the government take proactive measures to help airports achieve compliance with this act, including scheduled financial support and greater clarity regarding specific expectations and obligations.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Bogusz.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have about one minute and 45 seconds left.

[James Bogusz, Chair, Small Airports Caucus, Canadian Airports Council]

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

My name is James Bogusz. I am the president and CEO of the Regina airport. I'm also the chair of the small airports caucus for the CAC. I've worked in airports for over two decades and have direct experience with both the Victoria airport and the Regina airport when it comes to the obligations of official languages in airports and serving the travelling public.

I want to put on record that up until 2018, our obligations for official languages for travellers that met a specific demand were very clear. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages actually posted these obligations on its website, in public for all to see. These included things like wayfinding signage, preprinted restaurant menus, security notices and a host of other items that were very specific to the traveller.

However, from 2018 until now, it's my opinion that the office changed the very nature of these obligations dramatically, expanding the scope to touch almost every area of our airport's business, well beyond the essential needs of the travelling public, as intended. They're now validating a wide range of compliance issues, which is of great concern to us now that there's consideration for a regime of potential monetary penalties. This new regime has also enabled legal challenges from a few members of the public who are looking to monetize airports like Regina's as if we're not complying with the regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Bogusz, I apologize. Your time is complete. I'll ask you to wrap up, if possible.

[James Bogusz]

We're asking you to consider amending this regulation to exempt airports with under four million passengers. We want to avoid downloading more costs to the travelling public.

I want to assure this committee that it is our commitment in Regina to sensibly and commercially ensure that we have both official languages served for the traveller.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you.

Up next, we have Eric Fortier from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. You have five minutes.

[Eric Fortier, General Manager, Corporate Affairs, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

My name is Eric Fortier and I'm the general manager of corporate affairs at the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, often referred to by its acronym, CATSA. Joining me today is my colleague, Marc‑André O'Rourke, senior legal counsel.

Thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee as part of your important study of the proposed official languages administrative monetary penalty regulations.

CATSA was the centrepiece of the Government of Canada's response to the events of September 11, 2001, and was formally established on April 1, 2002, to oversee and strengthen aviation security in Canada.

Our organization is a Crown corporation funded entirely by parliamentary appropriations. It reports to Parliament through the Minister of Transport and is regulated by Transport Canada.

Our mission is to protect air travellers by providing the highest level of aviation security screening while ensuring a positive experience. CATSA is specifically responsible for providing security screening services at 89 designated Canadian airports. This mandate is carried out through two Canadian service providers that employ approximately 9,000 officers across the country. Our responsibilities include pre-boarding screening, checked baggage screening, non-passenger screening and ID card management in restricted areas.

In 2024-25, CATSA alone screened nearly 70 million passengers. I’d like to emphasize that CATSA takes its official language obligations very seriously. We are committed to ensuring that passengers travelling through designated bilingual airports see an active offer and receive service in the official language of their choice.

This commitment is also embedded in our contractual arrangements with screening contractors and is supported by ongoing performance measurement related to active offer, service of demand and staffing levels. This is in addition to having specific procedures, action plans, training and ongoing awareness initiatives.

In addition, CATSA works closely with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. For example, we've taken the initiative to set up monthly meetings with representatives from the office to discuss complaints and possible solutions to improve our operations.

Improving the customer experience is a key pillar of CATSA's strategic plan. This includes facilitating an inclusive screening experience for all passengers. To achieve this goal, CATSA has deployed more than 170 bilingual facilitators at screening checkpoints in the 16 busiest airports to assist passengers who may have questions or need additional help with the process. CATSA also regularly conducts passenger surveys on various service indicators, including service in the official language of their choice. In the third quarter of this fiscal year, nearly 96% of respondents indicated that they were served in their preferred language. This result demonstrates that our measures and initiatives are having a positive impact on strengthening services to travellers.

Thank you once again for allowing me to address you today. We look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fortier.

Next up is Patti Merrigan from Marine Atlantic Inc. You have five minutes.

[Patti Merrigan, Vice-President, Human Resources, Marine Atlantic Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, on behalf of Marine Atlantic, for the invitation to appear before you today and for the opportunity to comment on the draft regulations.

Before starting, I would like to respectfully acknowledge that Marine Atlantic operates in Mi'kma'ki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq peoples, and on the island of Ktaqmkuk, the unceded traditional territory of the Beothuk and Mi'kmaq peoples.

By way of brief context, Marine Atlantic is a Crown corporation that operates the federally mandated ferry service between the island of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. This connection is constitutionally significant. It was entrenched in the terms of union when Newfoundland and Labrador joined Canada, and it remains a vital transportation link for passengers, commercial traffic and communities.

At the outset, I want to state clearly that Marine Atlantic recognizes the importance of the Official Languages Act, including the recent amendments intended to reinforce substantive equality between Canada's two official languages. We take compliance seriously, and we continue to make meaningful investments to strengthen official languages capacity across our organization.

Our appearance before the committee today is not to diminish the importance of the act or our official languages responsibilities. However, we question whether these administrative penalties will achieve the desired outcomes, specifically in more rural areas such as ours.

There is a contradiction between the purpose of the draft regulations and their effect. Though the amendments to the act suggest that the purpose of a penalty is to “promote compliance” and “not to punish”, a penalty is by definition a form of punishment.

For administrative penalties to go beyond punishment and lead to compliance, the threat of the penalty must encourage change at an institution that is non-compliant. The logic is that priorities will shift if it is more cost-effective to be compliant, thereby leading the institution to invest the resources that allow it to comply with its obligations.

However, that logic does not necessarily hold true in all circumstances, particularly for organizations like Marine Atlantic operating in areas with limited markets for bilingual talent. Even after the administrative penalties come into force, Marine Atlantic will struggle to recruit bilingual talent despite ongoing investment and effort, which creates risk.

Similarly, we're concerned that penalties for type A violations may inadvertently result in reduced services to the travelling public in some circumstances. Third party businesses operating on our premises include small, sometimes family-run businesses such as food services and gift shops at our terminals. Marine Atlantic will likely be forced to eliminate such services if there is a risk of monetary penalties for non-compliance by those third parties.

We also have concerns about how these penalties may affect organizations like Marine Atlantic, which are heavily subsidized by public funds. We are a public service, and we do not operate on a profit-generating model. Any penalties imposed would ultimately reduce the funds that are otherwise directed toward delivering essential public service operations.

Compliance in rural regions is not simply a matter of money. Imposing penalties to promote compliance incorrectly assumes that the issue is a lack of investment in official languages, a lack of desire to recruit or retain bilingual talent or a lack of prioritization of official languages obligations.

Marine Atlantic welcomes measures that will help increase our ability to offer services in both official languages and promote linguistic duality in Canada. However, we fail to understand how these penalties will achieve those objectives.

With that in mind, we respectfully offer some recommendations for the committee's consideration if monetary penalties are imposed.

First, we suggest exploring flexible approaches that allow small, independent businesses in rural regions additional time and support to adapt to the regulatory requirements. We would also recommend that there be no mandatory minimum penalty for type C violations, allowing the commissioner to determine whether monetary penalties are appropriate in the circumstances for any type of violation, ensuring that the focus is on compliance and not punishment.

Finally, we respectfully recommend that funds from monetary penalties be reinvested directly into the affected organization for dedicated official languages education and training, which would more effectively strengthen bilingual service capacity than a punitive payment.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to speak with the committee today. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you very much, Ms. Merrigan.

We will now move on to question period with members.

Let's begin with Mr. Godin for six minutes.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here, whether virtually or in person.

I believe this is an important issue. I've been working on modernizing the Official Languages Act for several years, and what we've come up with are regulations. Incidentally, Bill C‑13 received royal assent in June 2023. It is now 2026, and I have to say that I'm a little disappointed with the improvisation going on.

Someone mentioned something in their testimony. As I speak to you, I'm looking through my notes to find out who it was.

Mr. Westin‑Eastaugh, you mentioned that there was no quantitative analysis of these regulations. I'd like to hear more about that.

[Érik Labelle Westin-Eastaugh]

My comment aligned with Ms. Merrigan's reasoning in her presentation. Monetary penalties are meant to change the internal incentive structure of the organizations targeted. However, in order to know whether the penalty will have the desired effect, we need to have some idea of the cost structure, profit margins and so on, otherwise it's difficult to determine whether the penalty will have the desired effect or whether the cost can easily be absorbed without having to change the way things are done. In my opinion, it would have been logical to conduct some quantitative analysis in this regard to guide the choice of penalty amounts. I don't think I've seen this kind of analysis, but I may have missed something.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Westin‑Eastaugh.

I will now turn to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

You mentioned that your organization is a Crown corporation funded by government appropriations. Where do those appropriations come from?

[Eric Fortier]

Security fees are billed for each flight.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

For each ticket.

[Eric Fortier]

They go into government coffers. Then, the government decides what percentage we get to keep.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

That means that part of these fees are kept by the government, and the other part is paid for by travellers.