Official Languages Committee on June 8th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Arseneault, you have the floor.

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

My question is for Mr. Fraser or Ms. Giguère, who is a lawyer.

Since I don't have much time, could you summarize in one minute what was debated before the Supreme Court, and the court's ruling?

[Graham Fraser]

The case that went before the Supreme Court was about service to a Canadian passenger during an international flight. The trial court decided that the complainant should be awarded a certain amount. The Appeal Court quashed that decision.

The Montreal Convention is an international agreement on the amounts awarded to people who sue airlines, and it limits the possibility of court appeals regarding international flights. The Supreme Court ruled that that convention—and Canada is a signatory—had precedence over the Official Languages Act.

There was a minority ruling according to which, since the Official Languages Act is a quasi-constitutional piece of legislation, Canadians should not lose their language rights when they take an international flight. You will understand that that is also our position. However, the majority of Supreme Court justices did not side with our position, but with Air Canada, and stipulated that the Montreal Convention had precedence.

Ms. Giguère, would you like to correct what I've just said?

[Pascale Giguère]

No, there is nothing to correct. What the commissioner said is exactly right. I can, however, add that it was the first time in the history of Canada that a decision had to be made as to whether the Montreal Convention or a quasi-constitutional act would have precedence.

It is the first time that the Supreme Court addressed the Montreal Convention, but it had twice before dealt with the previous convention, the Warsaw Convention. The Supreme Court relied a great deal on the decisions of all kinds of foreign courts, such as the United States Supreme Court, which had studied the application of the Montreal Convention in the context of their legal system. However, no decision had ever involved a quasi-constitutional act such as the one at issue. There was a type of legal void.

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

Fine.

So, the Montreal Convention has precedence over the Official Languages Act. In that case, was it an international flight or a domestic flight?

[Pascale Giguère]

It was an international flight.

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

I did not read that decision, but I am going to do so later.

According to the arguments, the Montreal Convention does not apply to domestic flights.

[Pascale Giguère]

That is correct.

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

Fine.

I don't want to ask the same questions as Mr. Choquette and Mr. Généreux.

In 2009, Air Canada had 10 million passengers; in 2015, there were 42 million and only 52 complaints. If the president of Air Canada were before me right now—and I hope he will be able to come to the committee very soon—what could I reply to that argument?

[Graham Fraser]

According—

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

There were 52 complaints for 42 million travellers. How could I insist, given that, that Air Canada respect my rights?

[Graham Fraser]

According to the figures the company uses in its communiqués, 6% of travellers were dissatisfied. That survey does not tell us how many francophones were polled. However, out of 42 million passengers, a 6% rate represents a critical mass of 2.5 million passengers who were not satisfied with their service.

I would ask questions. Why were the recommendations that followed the audit not implemented, even years later? How is it that the airport does not provide active offer? How is it that there isn't a business culture that ensures that the policies that are well accepted by management are also well communicated to employees who provide services directly to passengers?

As members of Parliament who travel, you can refer to your own experiences on the nature of the service. On the one hand, there are Air Canada employees who provide an exemplary service and are clearly proud to do so. On the other hand, certain employees absolutely do not know how to call on a bilingual colleague in another part of the plane to answer a service request that is made in French. Not only does there seem to be a legal void, but also a communication void, a gap between policies that seem appropriate, and their implementation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Lefebvre, you have the floor.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You said that it is only the second time in the history of the Office of the Commissioner that a Commissioner of Official Languages tables a special report in Parliament. Of course, your report says that over the past 45 years all of the commissioners who have studied the Air Canada dossier have repeated themselves, and repeated, and repeated. You are not telling Parliament anything new. The same things applied 45 years ago.

[Graham Fraser]

You mean I'm a doty broken record?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

You're a broken record, but you are bringing the issue to the fore once more and demonstrating that it's still an issue, 45 years later.

You spoke of amending the Air Canada Public Participation Act; section 10 is about official languages. What are your suggestions to amend that act? Should we impose consequences or fines, or obtain legal damages? You also suggest binding agreements. Do you think that amendment should be made to that part of the act?

[Graham Fraser]

That's one point, but another one is even more important: we have to remember that after Air Canada's restructuring in 2003-2004, four bills that involved Air Canada as a whole died on the Order Paper.

For instance, Jazz is not subject to the act, but given Air Canada's connection to Jazz, and because Jazz is like a third party for Air Canada in some areas of the country, Air Canada has the responsibility of seeing to it that Jazz respects its own language obligations.

Often, when enterprises have been restructured, employees have lost their right to work in French.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

So we want to make sure that pursuant to the Air Canada Public Participation Act, Air Canada's subsidiary companies will also respect linguistic acts. That would be one amendment we could make.

I want to go back to Via Rail in order to understand properly. Is VIA Rail subject to the Official Languages Act?

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

So it is completely subject to the law. Would it be fair to say that that is less of a problem for VIA Rail than for Air Canada?

[Graham Fraser]

I am asking myself that question.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Which mechanisms put in place by VIA Rail could Air Canada also use? How could we apply VIA Rail's best practices to Air Canada?

[Graham Fraser]

You would have to put the question to VIA Rail.

Recently I had an informal conversation with someone who spent part of her career as a lawyer at VIA Rail. I paid her a compliment and said that we very rarely receive complaints, despite the many passengers, and that that was an exemplary performance. She replied that people at VIA Rail work very hard on that.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

So it is a priority for that company.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.