Official Languages Committee on June 8th, 2016

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you.

Mr. Vandal, you have three minutes.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your fine work over the last 10 years.

No doubt you have travelled from coast to coast. I am from Saint-Boniface, a francophone minority community that you are probably somewhat aware of.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

What key factor would ensure the vitality of francophone minority communities? What are the priorities for the next five years?

[Graham Fraser]

I would say there are a number of challenges.

Immigration is one of those challenges. When I say immigration, I often cite the example of Manitoba, where there is close cooperation between Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the province, and the Société franco-manitobaine. With the creation of the organization Accueil francophone, we have seen very good results in receiving and assisting francophone immigrants and refugees. The Université de Saint-Boniface played an important role, as did the other organizations I mentioned.

I have discussed this with the minister. He is very much aware of the importance of immigration for minority communities.

Social media and technology are another challenge. We are in a transition now. The old communication technologies are becoming outdated. We are entering a new era of communication technologies.

In the letter I have prepared for my successor, which I included in my annual report, I referred to the distinction between a linguistic network and a linguistic space. It is very important for communities to have access to spaces where language is visible, audible and used. The networks are also important, but they benefit individuals. Being able to use French to submit a passport or pension application, to reserve airline tickets, or to get a boarding pass at the airport counter is great for individuals, but it doesn't do much for the community.

I think the challenge is the following. First of all, how can we ensure that minority community institutions have access to the new technologies in order to make this transition while at the same time supporting the community? Equally, how can we use these technologies to support the community and not just individuals?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes. After the break, we will begin our consideration of the special report on Air Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Dear friends, we will now resume the meeting. The Commissioner of Official Languages is still with us. He can tell us about his special report to Parliament on Air Canada's compliance with the Official Languages Act.

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on this report, Mr. Commissioner.

We are listening, Mr. Commissioner.

[Graham Fraser]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yesterday morning I submitted my special report, “Air Canada: On the road to increased compliance through an effective enforcement regime”, to the offices of the Speakers of the Houses of Commons and the Senate. The report describes the means used by me and my predecessors to ensure that Air Canada fully complies with its language obligations under the Official Languages Act.

It also contains options for Parliament to modernize the enforcement scheme for Air Canada. I reiterate that certain legal voids must be filled that have persisted since Air Canada was restructured in 2003-2004.

Finally, the report contains a single recommendation to Parliament, that this report be referred to one of the two standing committees on official languages for study.

Created by Parliament in 1937, Air Canada has always been a symbol of Canadian identity because it was built with public funds and because it has Canada in its name and the maple leaf on its logo.

Air Canada has been subject to the entire Official Languages Act for nearly 50 years, first as a crown corporation under the 1969 Official Languages Act and then under section 10 of the Air Canada Public Participation Act after the airline was privatized in 1988.

Since its privatization, Air Canada has gone through many financial and commercial transformations. However, as a national airline that was built with public funds, Air Canada must reflect the bilingual nature of the country and continue to meet its official languages obligations.

After 10 years as Commissioner, I believe it is important to provide an overview to Parliament of the ongoing problem regarding Air Canada's compliance with the Official Languages Act.

Of all the institutions subject to the act, Air Canada is, and has always been, among those that generate the largest number of complaints processed every year by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. With respect to the public, a number of investigations showed that in-flight and ground services are not always of equal quality in both official languages at all points of service and on all bilingual routes.

Despite the passing years and repeated interventions by successive commissioners of official languages, the situation has not changed much. Some of those infractions involve routes where providing bilingual services would seem to be obvious, like Montreal-Bathurst or Toronto-Quebec City.

After hundreds of investigations and recommendations, after an in-depth audit and after two court cases—including one that went to the Supreme Court of Canada—the fact remains that my numerous interventions, like those of my predecessors, have not produced the desired results.

From 2005 to 2011, four successive bills were introduced to resolve the application issues caused by Air Canada's restructuring in 2003-04. Unfortunately, all of them died on the Order Paper.

This is only the second time in the history of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages that a commissioner has submitted a special report to Parliament. I believe that this issue is important enough to be considered independently of my annual report, and I wanted to provide parliamentarians with a full account of our persistent efforts over many years. This is not a single-year issue. I also had many other matters to address in my annual report, including two important recommendations to government.

I think it is now no longer enough to make recommendations following investigations or audits, nor is it enough to report on Air Canada's compliance in annual reports to Parliament. This special report is the last tool I have at my disposal, which is why I submitted it to Parliament today. It's now up to Parliament to make the necessary legislative changes. The status quo is not working.

I therefore recommend that Parliament refer this special report for study on a priority basis to one of the two standing committees on official languages. In the report, I propose different options to modernize the enforcement scheme for Air Canada in order to help guide official languages parliamentary committees in their examination of this report.

In particular, the Air Canada Public Participation Act must be amended in order to uphold the language rights of the travelling public and Air Canada employees in the airline's current structure, and enforcement of the Official Languages Act must be strengthened in order to improve Air Canada's compliance.

Air Canada says that its obligations under the Official Languages Act put it at a disadvantage compared to its competitors. Air Canada believes that the solution is to make the act applicable to all airlines.

In my view, a better indicator of success would be a more effective enforcement scheme for the act that is better adapted to Air Canada's reality. However, despite our disagreements, Air Canada and I are in agreement on one thing: the government should act.

As I near the end of my time in office, I think it is important to bring this issue to Parliament's attention and to propose possible solutions. It is now up to parliamentarians to address the issue.

This special report clearly demonstrates that despite the interventions of the commissioners of official languages since 1969, the problems persist.

Therefore, I ask that the government make this a high priority in order to protect the language rights of the travelling public and Air Canada employees.

Thank you.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Commissioner.

We will now go to a first round of questions and answers.

You have the floor, Mr. Généreux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Commissioner, with respect to Air Canada, you recommend that one of Parliament's two official languages committees conduct another study. Yet there have been countless studies on Air Canada in the last 45 or 50 years.

Wouldn't it be wiser to take action right away rather than study the matter once again? Wouldn't the best decision be for the committee to adopt a motion calling on the government to act immediately?

[Graham Fraser]

Let's say there is a bill. It would have to debated in committee. If you choose among the options I have proposed, the committee will have to discuss that.

I am not asking for a study. The committee should make decisions. I was very pleased to see the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Transport express their interest in this reviewing this study. The minister even said that she would like to do so in collaboration with the committee.

I think the issues are complex enough to warrant at least a discussion of a bill. Four bills on the subject have died on the Order Paper. The situation has evolved since the first bill. Stéphane Dion introduced a bill in the last Parliament, but it also died on the Order Paper. There is certainly matter for discussion.

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

Mr. Dion is now part of the government.

Were the most recent proposals in his bill effective and appropriate?

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, I think so. I think it was a response to a problem he had seen. As a former minister, he thought that the Supreme Court's interpretation was not consistent with the government's intentions when it voted for the Montreal Convention. The government never thought that the Montreal Convention would take precedence over the Official Languages Act. His bill was therefore intended to ensure that the Official Languages Act would take precedence over the Montreal Convention.

We had indicated our position on this. We maintained that, as a quasi-constitutional law, it already took precedence, but a majority of the Supreme Court held the opposite. It said that the Montreal Convention, as an international agreement, took precedence.

His bill was a response to that decision, and that response was consistent with the position we argued before the Supreme Court.

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

A bit earlier, when we were discussing your general report, I asked you about your concern that the French fact seemed to be taken for granted. Do you think Air Canada sees it as a given, that is has been resolved and that we don't need to talk about it any more? How do you think Air Canada views something that is not only its obligation but its daily reality? Let's be clear: I read that they have 40 million passengers per year, or was it 20 million, I'm not sure.

[Graham Fraser]

It's 42 million, according to the—

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

You are talking about 42 million and the company has received about 50 complaints. I would ask you very naively if you think that is a very good record or a very poor one?

[Graham Fraser]

I'm always hesitant to use the number of complaints as the sole performance indicator.

There is something else that struck me. In 2010, we conducted an audit of the services Air Canada offered to travellers in both official languages. In 2015, we followed up on the recommendations made further to that audit and found that just one of our twelve recommendations had been implemented.

I can't speak for Air Canada, but I can tell you what I observed.

First of all, a considerable investment and a real effort were made to provide in-flight services in both official languages on all Air Canada flights to Vancouver during the Olympic Games, regardless of travellers' departure point. I had hoped this investment and effort would greatly improve service. Our audit showed, however, that employees thought this rule applied during the Olympic Games only and that they didn't have to apply it after the Olympic Games. When I raised this with the board of directors, they told me that they had never said that. Yet this was the message that employees understood. I think this points to a lack of communication.

Sometimes those requesting service in French are greeted with disdain, contempt or a lack of respect, and it is often this lack of respect that triggers a complaint. Most people will shrug their shoulders and say, that's the way it is, and nothing will change. When they are unfairly treated though, they react.

The Air Canada communiqué refers to a survey showing that 94% of customers surveyed were satisfied with the level of bilingual services. As I said, I am hesitant to rely on percentages. Air Canada did however want to use these percentages. Of a total of 42 million passengers, 6% means that 2.5 million passengers were not satisfied. It does not indicate whether francophones or bilingual passengers were surveyed. It does not say. According to Air Canada's own figures, a considerable number of passengers are not satisfied with the level of bilingualism.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Commissioner, with your permission, we will move on to the next question.

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much for your explanations. Based on what you said about the Olympic Games, Air Canada must have been happy that Quebec would not be hosting the Winter Olympics. People at Air Canada must have secretly been delighted.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

What offends me is that the headquarters is in Montreal, a bilingual city. It is primarily in Quebec that French is spoken. I am shocked that, since 1969, the recommendations that you and your predecessors have made have not been taken more seriously. You said earlier that, in 2014-2015, you found that only one of your twelve recommendations had been taken seriously. That is really disappointing.

I am a client of Air Canada and I make a point of being served in French, but I always leave from Montreal so it is not a problem.

Other than a slap on the wrists, what are the consequences of not considering the French fact?

[Graham Fraser]

We have in fact used a number of tools.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

There are no fines. Usually people understand that they will be fined $5,000 for a first infraction, and then the fine increases to $10,000, $15,000 and $20,000. When the fine gets to $100,000, shareholders start talking.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, the possibility of imposing fines is one of the options we put forward in this report.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

There must be consequences. When you don't follow the rules in life, there are consequences.