Official Languages Committee on Feb. 5th, 2026

[Eric Fortier]

No. Technically, the fund that funds us is paid for by travellers.

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

So it's not a government grant. Travellers are the ones who—

[Eric Fortier]

The money paid by travellers goes to the CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency.

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

There's a useless middle man in this picture, and it's the government.

Do we agree on that?

[Eric Fortier]

I won't speak to that.

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

It's my opinion.

I wanted it to be clear, because it's important. You're a Crown corporation and you say you're funded by government appropriations, but the fact is that you're funded by the travellers themselves.

[Eric Fortier]

Exactly.

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

It's an important distinction, because there is a difference.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I will now turn to Mr. Bogusz and Ms. Pondant.

Mr. Bogusz, you mentioned that there was no confusion before 2018 and that providing services was easy. Then things started going downhill in 2018. You're drowning in all the regulations and the red tape.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

[James Bogusz]

I've grown up in airports. When I first started in airports, official languages, in my view, were not being implemented in a way that you would expect today. There's no doubt.

I'm glad to see that industry worked with the government to come up with a very clear and concise traveller-specific mandate that applied to airports for many years. For the committee's interest, I brought a copy so that you can all see it. It's not on the public website any longer—it's been removed—but I have it here, and I'm happy to share it with the committee.

It's very reasonable. It ensures that travellers can receive essential services in the official language of their choice, as they can today at my airport in Regina, Saskatchewan, which, by the way, has a very low demographic of French speakers compared to English speakers, per the census.

In 2018, that all changed, and that's the concern with compliance today.

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

Thank you, Mr. Bogusz. I must interrupt you again, because I only have six minutes.

Here's what I found reasonable in the message from your colleague, Ms. Pondant.

Ms. Pondant, you suggested something very important. We cannot treat the Regina or Victoria airports the same as the Toronto airport. These airports are governed by the same rules, but they don't have the same resources. You've clearly shown how important both official languages are to you.

Is it realistic and feasible for your organization to comply with regulations that aren't very clear, that are somewhat vague, and that could be challenged?

[Julie Pondant]

We're really looking for clarity on the matter so we know how to prepare for the regulations being discussed.

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

Since my time is limited, would it be possible for you to send the clerk your clearly worded recommendations, such as exemptions for airports that handle fewer than four million passengers annually, and other proposals that would enable us to create realistic regulations and encourage you to continue promoting both official languages to the best of your ability and within the capacity of your regions?

[Julie Pondant]

Yes absolutely. We can get those for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Ms. Chenette, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

I'd like to thank the witnesses for joining us today to talk about this very important issue, the reality of the airports they represent, and Marine Atlantic. It's important that we all understand this.

I'd like to ask the representatives from the Canadian Airports Council and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority a question about the four million passenger limit.

In government, we don't look at what has been done in the past, but at what needs to be done for the future. In this context, if we take into account the Canadian reality and the fact that SMEs and industries work better together from east to west, it is clear that this will inevitably lead to more francophones travelling around our beautiful country.

Furthermore, as part of our mandate relating to education, we've learned that there is indeed a desire for our provinces and regions to better recognize the importance of having more bilingual staff and to take the necessary steps to achieve this, both to develop the vitality of francophone communities and to encourage anglophones to speak French, and vice versa. So, going forward, the reality is that we need more bilingual talent and services in both official languages, both for the Canadian business community and for all the foreign investment we're going to pursue.

So, with regard to the four million passenger limit you mentioned, I understand that things have changed since 2018, but we're now in 2026, and by 2030, we're going to need a lot more bilingual services across our beautiful country.

In this context, without necessarily saying that the four million passenger limit should be removed, what transition do you need to ensure that you have the talent you need?

[James Bogusz]

Every region of Canada is different in terms of its demographics, per the census. I'm representing our small airports, but I'm also representing my own airport in Regina.

Based on census data in 2021, I would have to have literally one quarter of the entire French-speaking population of my city work at my airport to comply with what's expected of me today. We put sensible solutions in the airport to support bilingualism, specifically a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week phone line that my staff can use to translate if someone chooses to speak in French or English.

The challenge I have is that's not acceptable in the eyes of the regulator. This is the problem, not a lack of desire to comply or to promote. I feel strongly about this, as I'm sure the committee does. It is a very important issue for us, especially as an airport in a capital city. I take that very seriously.

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

I'd also like to hear from Ms. Merrigan on her organization's experiences with all this.

What kind of transition do you need, what kind of mechanisms could be put in place to help you?

[Patti Merrigan]

We have similar issues with respect to bilingual talent in the area we operate in, particularly in small towns in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. It has been an ongoing issue for us. We have invested significant effort and money into French training for our employees and into attempts to recruit. We will continue to do that to try to grow our ability to provide better service in both official languages.

However, we will continue to be at risk of complaints under the Official Languages Act simply because we have a limited talent pool of bilingual individuals in this area. We continue to invest in education and training. We currently have employees in full-time French-language training, for example, but it is an ongoing struggle that we don't see a solution for at any time in the near future.

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

I understand your concern about finding bilingual staff. However, once again, what we've heard is that we need to provide more support in the regions and invest in programs to promote bilingualism.

That said, I'll turn to Mr. Westin‑Eastaugh.

You mention detailed criteria and the burdensome nature of the process. How can we streamline it in a practical way, knowing that we also want to ensure accountability so that organizations meet their obligations rather than giving a host of excuses for not doing so?

What do you recommend in this regard?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Ms. Chenette, you have about 45 seconds left.

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

That's enough for the witness to respond.

[Érik Labelle Westin-Eastaugh]

I was referring specifically to paragraph (c) of section 6 of the draft regulations, which sets out a very detailed list of items that must be included in notices of violation for the purpose of providing justification. In my opinion, this could be eliminated. We could simply require the commissioner to explain his or her decision to impose a fine. The determination of what constitutes sufficient justification will vary depending on the context, the amount of the fine and so on. This would greatly simplify matters.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Ms. Chenette.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Westin‑Eastaugh, you said that we need a more flexible framework and that it should be expanded to include security services. Indeed, it seems a little illogical to me that the regulations apply to airport restaurants, among other things, but not to security services.

Could you elaborate on that? Should the scope of the regulations be broadened?