Official Languages Committee on June 8th, 2016

[Graham Fraser]

There is a range of possibilities, including fines. We also suggested agreements between the Commissioner's office and Air Canada. An agreement would protect Air Canada from legal action for a certain period. If the agreement were not respected, however, legal action could be taken. So there is a range of options that we have put forward for your consideration. They all have their pros and cons.

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

Since there are two official languages in Canada, do you suggest that the Official Languages Act apply to all Canadian airline companies, or to all of those who do business in Canada?

[Graham Fraser]

Air Canada actually submitted that suggestion. They went to the trouble of preparing practically a draft bill. If you think that we should impose language obligations on all of the airlines, you are free to suggest it. Personally, I have hesitated to make that recommendation. I felt that if it was difficult for Air Canada to comply with the act, it would be even harder for other carriers.

The fact that Air Canada head offices are in Montreal is already an advantage. There is already a well-defined clientele in Quebec. VIA Rail, another carrier that has language obligations, has really acted to see to it that the active offer or capacity to serve clients in both official languages is a value in their enterprise. I think extending the application of the act would pose certain problems.

Air Canada claims to have made progress. That is true if you compare the number of complaints made 20 years ago with the number at this time. However, it is unfortunate to note that rather than taking our audit and complaints as a tool to improve performance, Air Canada has been rather resistant to the idea that this is a systemic problem. The employees we deal with cooperate with us. We obtain a lot of cooperation from them, but we can guess Air Canada's position from the tone of their lawyer's reply, which we included in our report.

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

Thank you very much.

I hope that we can hold bilingual Olympic games in a few years in Quebec. Perhaps then, Air Canada will have gotten into line and will be offering bilingual service.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

I now yield the floor to Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fraser, I really must congratulate you on the Air Canada report. Not only have you produced an extremely well-developed report, but you also propose concrete solutions for legislators. Thank you very much for that report, which is really very well written.

In your statement to the media you mentioned that your work could be compared to “trying to run up the down escalator”: if you stop for a minute, you lose ground and start to come back down. The same goes for Air Canada.

I like the fact that you don't compare Air Canada to other airline companies but rather to VIA Rail, another crown corporation that has been privatized. However, that company manages very well in complying with the Official Languages Act.

In the beginning of your special report, there is a quote from former commissioner Keith Spicer: “There is hardly a technical or administrative problem in language reform that Air Canada could not solve if its attitude were different.” That was in 1976.

The committee is trying to get the president of Air Canada to appear next Monday. He does not seem to want to appear before parliamentarians. What is your reaction to that?

[Graham Fraser]

As to the position of the president who may not want to appear, I think you have the power to oblige the people your work concerns to appear. I think you can use that power to ensure that they come here.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

I want to clarify one thing. Others have mentioned that the time for studies has passed and that it is now time to act. That is absolutely true. Your report does not recommend a long study on the situation at Air Canada, but rather a study on all of the recommendations. Indeed, we can implement several of your recommendations.

You did mention Stéphane Dion's bill, but it only dealt with one dimension of the problem, international flights.

[Graham Fraser]

Correct.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

That said, it remains very important.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I'd like to go back to your first recommendation, about binding agreements. Why is that so important? I am not only thinking of VIA Rail but also about many other situations. The FCFA, for instance, recommended that the commissioner have more powers, in order to ensure the best implementation of your recommendations.

Can you give us more details on that?

[Graham Fraser]

I am going to ask Ms. Pascale Giguère to provide more details on the binding agreements; she is the expert in this area.

As for requesting greater powers, that question has often been put to me. I always answered that I wanted to use the tools in the existing act before triggering a discussion on new powers. I also wanted to set the scene for the person who will succeed me. I think that with the arrival of a new commissioner, the time is right to talk about it.

Ms. Giguère, could you please explain the binding agreements?

[Pascale Giguère, Director and General Counsel, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

When we do an audit on Air Canada, the commissioner recommends that it take certain measures. In the context of our audits, Air Canada may also table action plans wherein it commits to adopting certain measures.

As the name indicates, a binding agreement is an agreement where the organization concerned is obliged to produce the agreed-upon results. With a binding agreement, the institution would agree to take certain steps. If it did not fulfil its commitments, amendments could include consequences. They would probably be that the court could issue an order forcing the institution to meet the commitments it made in the binding agreement.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Fraser, you made your last recommendations to Air Canada in 2010. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Graham Fraser]

We did do an audit in 2010, that's true.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I think there were 11 recommendations.

[Graham Fraser]

There were 12, but we were not satisfied with the implementation of 11 of the recommendations. We were only satisfied with one of the 12 recommendations.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Which explains why you intervened so often.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

It was because only one of their responses was satisfactory.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

That is why you suggested binding agreements, among other things. You would like the position to have more teeth in situations where we seem to be faced with an organization that does not want to comply with the act.

After the binding agreements, you suggest option B, legal damages. Could you explain to us what the consequences of that option would be for the committee and for the legislators?

[Graham Fraser]

Once again, I am going to ask Ms. Giguère to explain the details of those options.

[Pascale Giguère]

Currently, when a complainant goes to the Federal Court of Canada, the court of course has the power to award damages, but the complainant must prove that he sustained harm due to the violation of his language rights.

It is quite a rigorous exercise, one that may discourage a certain number of people. There is a mechanism in the law pursuant to which certain violations automatically cause damages to be awarded. A range would be determined. Certain violations would be punished, taking into account a range of financial penalties. The complainant would not have to prove injury following a violation of his language rights. As soon as the breach was demonstrated, the court could award damages.

So that would be a more powerful mechanism than what is currently in the law.