Evidence of meeting #74 for Official Languages in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was penalty.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Actually, I have no more questions for the witnesses, as the answers have been quite complete.
If someone else has questions, they can have my speaking time.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Alupa Clarke
In that case, we'll move on to Mr. Généreux and then to Mr. Choquette.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
You're giving me your speaking time? I must say that you're generous. That's incredible.
I'll use all of the remaining time, all 15 minutes.
4:25 p.m.
Voices
Ha, ha!
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Very good, Mr. Choquette.
Ms. Robinson-Dalpé, I don't at all agree with what Mr. Samson said earlier. The commissioner has filed several reports regarding Air Canada in relation to official languages. To my knowledge, none of those reports have ever been positive, or at least very few have been. Those reports have inevitably had consequences for the carrier's reputation over time. As evidence, we're sitting here today discussing a special report that the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled before leaving to tell us that Air Canada was a very poor student in terms of official languages and that a means of punishing it must absolutely be found.
I believe we've all reached the same conclusion. We've been looking at this issue for a year and a half. We've met with the president of Air Canada, who gave a very poor performance before they the committee. He was even condescending. I believe that was a fairly unanimous opinion. However, we've seen that, since then, people at Air Canada have considerably changed the way they deal with the matter. They have applied all types of measures. The report on the issue that we are now studying will also propose new measures.
Inevitably, that has an impact on Air Canada as a company and on how the public perceives it. The fact that its image and reputation are affected is, to some extent, a penalty. I believe that this report was detrimental, to some extent. Detrimental may not be the right term, but condemning Air Canada in that way was harmful to it. The fact remains that the company took the bull by the horns and adopted corrective measures, to some extent.
I'm sorry if my preamble is long, but we heard from a witness this week who has sued Air Canada several times over the last 15 years. He has even gone to the Supreme Court. According to him, the fact that Air Canada uses the term “exit” rather than sortie on a sign in an aircraft, in a building, or on its property infringes on his right to be served in his official language.
If the commissioner were given the power to impose monetary penalties and if everything the commissioner suggests in his report were done, do you think it could get out of hand?
The commissioner proposes that people need not necessarily prove the prejudice that they had suffered, such as having to read the word “exit” on a sign. They could simply file a complaint with the commissioner, and, as such, Air Canada would have to pay an amount to those people.
Are there more constructive ways to ensure that Air Canada complies with the act? It already does in part, I think
My preamble has been long. I don't know whether you want to add anything.
4:30 p.m.
Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I'm not an expert in official languages. However, when we administer our system, we follow a process of fairness in determining the penalty. We consider the history and situation as it is presented. There may have been violations, but they were proven.
If an individual responsible for administering that system had the tools needed to strike a balance between a complaint and an offence and mitigate the result accordingly, that could be reasonable.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Does the same thing apply to the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada?
4:30 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
I agree with with Ms. Robinson-Dalpé, of course.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I'm not an expert either, but I I'm still concerned about what would happen if the commissioner were to have the four tools that he suggests. Each of those tools is different, but imagine that they applied only to Air Canada, without taking into account the other organizations subject to the act.
Once it's known that someone who sees an “exit” sign in an aircraft—an aircraft that Air Canada did not build, by the way—can consider that their rights as a francophone in Canada have been infringed upon and that they can file a complaint, I believe that thousands of people could file complaints to try to receive $100, $200, or $1,500. In fact, they wouldn't have to prove that they were harmed; they would simply have to say that they saw a sign that said “exit”.
Of course, my example is an extreme one, but is it possible—
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
An hon. member
That's really pushing it to the extreme.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I understand, but I'm using the examples we were given.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
My understanding? I'll let you—
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Alupa Clarke
I'll interrupt here, as your speaking time has ended.
Mr. Choquette, you have the floor for five minutes.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
I simply want to correct something. First, a complaint must be filed with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, then, the complaint must be proven, and, after that, a penalty can be imposed. That's the order in which things are done.
That said, my questions are about our need to ensure respect for official languages. We are currently in a situation in which people are not respecting the act once, twice, three times, and over and over again. It's in that situation that we're trying to find a solution to ensure compliance with the act.
Could you give me examples of individuals or organizations that have repeatedly failed to comply with the law? If so, what did you need to do to try to change their behaviour?
4:30 p.m.
Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
In our case, the commissioner issues reports. On our website, we have reports indicating that certain individuals have contravened rules under the Conflict of Interest Act.
4:30 p.m.
Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No, it doesn't go to three or four times.
4:30 p.m.
Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
There may be cases where it happens twice.
In those cases, the commissioner is of the opinion that the information must be publicly disclosed and that it's then up to Canadians to do something.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
So, no individual or organization ever contravenes the act more than twice, in your case.
4:35 p.m.
Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
In terms of investigations, it's never happened. For penalties, I believe it's happened once or twice.