Official Languages Committee on May 2nd, 2016

[Colette Lagacé]

That's an indirect reduction. We have had to manage some collective agreements. In fact, certain collective agreements were not given to us, but we negotiated a pay raise for employees.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I assume you have set aside reserves for subsequent years, right?

[Colette Lagacé]

Yes, we set aside money for emergencies. We can carry forward 5% of our main estimates. That is sort of what we did last year.

The budget is constant because we have still not decided what kind of a request we will submit to the Treasury Board. That comes from the main estimates. That is done every five years, and it helps us plan. For the time being, we are projecting consistency, until money is allocated to us through a request to the Treasury Board. There is a mechanism that enables us to have the funds—supplementary estimates. Afterwards, that will be integrated into our budget.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Okay.

I will now talk about politics, and I apologize in advance.

To use Mr. Boissonnault's expression from earlier, I have to say, for the record—let's hope it's not in vinyl, but in web 2.0—that the government is not walking the talk. Clearly, if the announced budget as planned over the next three years is the same as the current budget, official languages are not a priority for the new government.

I will yield the floor to Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I will very quickly just go back to your opening statement.

You mentioned the special report you'll be tabling in June. I don't expect you to disclose what's in that report, but I would be interested in the subject of Air Canada and some of the challenges that have been encountered over the years in dealing with, effectively, a private corporation—it used to be a crown corporation—and enforcing the Official Languages Act on a private business.

What are the challenges that have existed in recent years in enforcing that act on a private corporation?

[Graham Fraser]

The challenges for Air Canada have been partly.... Their enthusiasm, shall we say, has been muted somewhat.

I talked to the president of Air Canada and told him that we would be making a special report. He reiterated his position that they feel it is unfair that they have obligations that other private carriers do not have in Canada. He feels that Air Canada is the most bilingual private company in Canada and that we do not give sufficient recognition to this.

I think there are other private corporations—I am thinking of Bell Canada, for example—that are exemplary in their use of both official languages. We have previously recognized Rogers as also being exemplary in its service to Canadians in both official languages, so I wouldn't necessarily accept his claim that Air Canada is the most bilingual private corporation.

One of the things I have noted is that sometimes the best intentions of the executives of Air Canada do not get translated down to the employees.

We did an audit of services to the public in 2010-2011, just after the Olympics, and in the preparation for the Olympics, Air Canada did extremely well in ensuring that all travellers to Vancouver would be served in both official languages, as did the 17 other federal institutions that had any contact with the Vancouver Olympics.

However, in the interviews we did for our audit, we discovered that employees were under the impression that this extra effort that Air Canada made was just for the Olympics. Rather than there being a ratcheted effect of Air Canada managing to up its performance and then maintaining that performance at cruising speed and cruising level, the employees all felt, “Well, that was just a special deal for the Olympics, and we'll go back to doing it the way we've always done it before.” When I made the presentation of these audit results to the Air Canada executive, they were shocked and said, “We never said that.”

It wasn't a matter of what they had said; it was a matter of what they didn't say.

I think the unfortunate part about our relationship with Air Canada and Air Canada's view of official languages is that they continue to view this as a burden rather than as a value. I think there are all kinds of ways in which Air Canada could embrace official languages and view it as a source of pride, as a marketing tool, and as a key to their identity, but for whatever bundle of reasons, they tend to resist that and are resentful of those responsibilities that were part of the agreement of sale. They feel that they are saddled with this burden only because the agreement of sale wasn't negotiated properly 30 years ago, and if it had only been negotiated properly, they wouldn't have to do this stuff.

I think this is particularly unfortunate when you fly internationally and see how linguistically proficient other airlines are in serving their passengers. I spoke to somebody in Barcelona who told me that he had taken a flight from Barcelona to Miami and there was on-board service in Catalan.

Other airlines see their ability to serve their passengers in their language of choice as a value rather than as a burden, and I think it's unfortunate that Air Canada is as resistant as it is to our attempts to help them achieve their obligations under the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Arseneault, you have three minutes.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fraser, in response to a question by my colleague Mr. Lefebvre about the linguistic duality promotion program, Ms. Giguère—or at least I think it was her—told us that, over the past few years, you have intervened 23 times before the court, with 9 of those interventions being before the Supreme Court of Canada. Of course, that requires a lot of resources, energy and money.

I don't want to play politics, to use my colleague Mr. Généreux's expression, but I am wondering whether there is a correlation between your interventions and the fact that the famous court challenges program was abolished twice by the Conservatives.

Is there a connection between the two?

[Graham Fraser]

I will give you a preliminary answer. I will actually ask Ms. Giguère to complete my answer, but I will still say that our interventions primarily target cases related to our act. The court challenges program did not provide funding for interventions related to the Official Languages Act. It provided funding only for interventions related to bills involving rights set out by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

The charter is often invoked in relation to language rights.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes. We have intervened in certain cases related to the charter.

I will ask Ms. Giguère to specify whether an increase has been noted, given the absence of the court challenges program during part of my term.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Actually, that was not quite the point of my question. I don't have much time and....

[Graham Fraser]

No, allow me to clarify.

The court challenges program, which was abolished in 2006, was replaced by the language rights support program.

Some remedies were probably not initiated, but they were not related to languages. Certain limitations to the funding of the language rights support program were set. As a result, some cases could not get funding. However, those cases rather had to do with other provisions, including section 15 of the charter, which pertains to equality. In general, the language rights support program has been able to support people when it comes to language issues.

I will yield the floor to Ms. Giguère.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Please answer quickly, Ms. Giguère. There isn't really any time left.

[Pascale Giguère]

I will just add that the Commissioner will submit, at the same time as the annual report, in May, a summary report on how he has performed his role before the courts during his term. The report will also talk about the way his predecessors performed that role. Some statistics will be presented.

The way the Commissioner has exercised his role is very similar to how other commissioners have done it. The Commissioner has not really intervened in proceedings more than his predecessors did. Therefore, I don't think there is any correlation between his interventions and the court challenges program.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lefebvre asked me whether he could take the floor, but before I give it to him, I have a question for the committee members.

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES Vote 1—Program expenditures.......... $18,559,402

(Vote 1 agreed to)

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

I did not understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mrs. Boucher, we just agreed to vote 1.

Shall I report Main Estimates 2016-2017 to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Go ahead, Mr. Lefebvre.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Commissioner Fraser, since this is probably your last appearance before the committee, I would like to move the following motion:

Whereas Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, worked for 10 years as Commissioner; Whereas Graham Fraser demonstrated exemplary commitment to his duties; That the Standing Committee on Official Languages officially thank Mr. Fraser for his service enforcing the Official Languages Act across Canada for the benefit of all Canadians.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Congratulations, Commissioner.

Esteemed colleagues, I want to remind you that, tomorrow, May 3, at noon, we will hold a working lunch, an informal meeting with the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court in the parliamentary restaurant. All the committee members are invited to attend.

I also have to tell you that the agenda for our meeting on Wednesday will include all the committee business, as well as the motions of which François Choquette, Linda Lapointe, Darrell Samson and Sylvie Boucher have given notice. Mrs. Boucher submitted two notices of motion. We will consider all those motions at our meeting on Wednesday afternoon.

Once again, we sincerely thank you and your team, Commissioner. You have my congratulations on the amazing job you are doing.

Thank you very much.

[Graham Fraser]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

The meeting is adjourned.