Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 11 - Evidence - Meeting of April 3, 2017
OTTAWA, Monday, April 3, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:01 p.m., in public, to continue its study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act, and in camera to study a draft agenda.
Senator Paul E. McIntyre (Acting Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Acting Chair: Good evening. My name is Paul McIntyre. I am a senator from New Brunswick and I am pleased to chair this evening's meeting.
Before I give the floor to the witnesses, I would like to invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting from the right.
Senator Bovey: I am Patricia Bovey from Manitoba.
Senator Boisvenu: Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec. I am replacing Senator Maltais this evening.
Senator Moncion: Senator Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
The Acting Chair: The committee is continuing its study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act. This evening, we are pleased to welcome Ghislaine Saikaley, Interim Commissioner of Official Languages; Pascale Giguère, General Counsel and Director; Mary Donaghy, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch; and Jean Marleau, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch. I understand that you are here to talk to us about two reports released by the Office of the Commissioner, a review of official languages concerning the Courts Administration Service as well as a review of official languages with regard to Air Canada.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being here. You have opening remarks to make, Ms. Saikaley, so please proceed.
[English]
Ghislaine Saikaley, Interim Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Senators, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, good evening.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today as interim official languages commissioner. I would like to mention that my team and I are always available to answer questions from parliamentarians, even during this transition period.
If I may, I will start by briefly addressing the dispute we are facing with the Courts Administration Service and then conclude by discussing the legislative changes that we are proposing regarding Air Canada.
[Translation]
In both cases, the Office of the Commissioner has taken the exceptional measure of addressing Parliament directly in order to resolve a stalemate that has persisted after all other approaches provided for by the Official Languages Act have been exhausted.
Last fall, Commissioner Graham Fraser tabled his report to Parliament on our investigation concerning the Courts Administration Service, CAS. This report followed the April 7, 2016 report to the Governor-in-Council. The core of the conflict concerns the posting of decisions on Federal Court websites. Often, decisions are not posted in both official languages at the same time. In fact, it can take many months for a decision to be published in the other official language.
[English]
We started our investigation into the situation in 2007. Ten years later, complaints continue to be filed. The institution is of the opinion that the publication of decisions on websites falls under Part III of the act on the administration of justice. Our position is that this issue pertains to Part IV, which concerns the linguistic obligations of federal institutions in terms of communications with the public.
Numerous discussions with the institution have failed to resolve the dispute.
[Translation]
Our final 2015 investigation report concluded that the CAS was still in breach of the Official Languages Act. The institution did not act on our recommendation to take measures that would enable them to publish decisions simultaneously in both official languages. The issue therefore requires greater statutory clarification. I hope that the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages will recommend that the government draft a bill to clarify the linguistic obligations of the federal courts in this regard.
I would now like to move on to Air Canada.
[English]
As you know, on June 7, 2016, Commissioner Graham Fraser tabled a special report before the Senate and the House of Commons, entitled Air Canada: On the road to increased compliance through an effective enforcement regime.
This report describes the measures taken by official languages commissioners over the years to obtain Air Canada's full compliance with its language obligations under the Official Languages Act. It also sets out options that would enable Parliament to modernize the enforcement scheme for Air Canada in order to fill certain legal voids that have existed since Air Canada's major restructuring in 2003-04.
[Translation]
Finally, the report contains a recommendation addressed to Parliament to refer the report to either of the standing committees on official languages for review.
Air Canada has been subject to the full scope of the Official Languages Act for nearly 50 years, first, as a Crown corporation under the first 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 air carrier that was built with public funds, Air Canada must reflect the bilingual nature of the country and continue to meet its official languages obligations.
[English]
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 service to the public, a number of our investigations have shown, and continue to show, that in- flight and on-the-ground services are not always of equal quality in both official languages at all points of service and on all bilingual routes. Some of these infractions concern routes on which providing bilingual service would seem to go without saying, like Montreal-Bathurst or Toronto-Quebec City.
[Translation]
After hundreds of investigations and recommendations, after an in-depth audit and two court cases — including one that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada — it is now up to Parliament to make the necessary legislative changes.
The report also addresses the fact that other legislative changes are necessary. From 2005 to 2011, four successive bills were introduced to resolve the enforcement issues caused by Air Canada's restructuring in 2003-04. Unfortunately, all of them died on the Order Paper.
[English]
Therefore, the report proposes to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act in order to uphold the language rights of the travelling public and Air Canada's employees in light of the airline's current structure. It also proposes four options for amending the Air Canada Public Participation Act that would modernize the enforcement scheme for Air Canada.
First, give the Office of the Commissioner the authority to sign binding agreements with Air Canada. The Privacy Commissioner already has this authority. This enforcement method is not sufficient in itself, but it would support other measures.
[Translation]
Then, it would be possible to give the Federal Court the power to order Air Canada to pay legal damages. Alternatively, the Air Canada Public Participation Act could be amended to set out fines for specific infractions. The Access to Information Act and the Lobbying Act already contain such provisions.
[English]
Finally, Air Canada could be subject to administrative monetary penalties for linguistic infractions. It is already subject to this type of penalty from the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Canada Border Services Agency, and the Competition Tribunal.
I feel that a more rigorous enforcement scheme for the Official Languages Act that is better adapted to Air Canada's reality would be a more effective indicator of success.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[Translation]
The Acting Chair: Thank you Ms. Saikaley. Are there any other witnesses who wish to speak? No?
[English]
We will now be joined by Senator Joan Fraser and Senator Percy Mockler. Welcome, both.
[Translation]
We will now go to the question period, starting with Senator Moncion.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for your report, which is very interesting. My question relates to the legal damages and financial penalties that Air Canada may be ordered to pay. Do you have information on the number of times this type of penalty has been applied, and on the amounts involved? I have the impression that, when there are penalties, it is the passengers who pay them. So there may be a stalemate here.
Ms. Saikaley: Do you mean that the costs are transferred to them?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Ms. Saikaley: Unfortunately, I do not have that information. What we wanted to do in the report was, above all, to provide Parliament with options based on existing examples, such as the provisions that Air Canada is already subject to or measures that other officers of Parliament have the authority to impose. Unfortunately, we have not researched the amounts or the number of cases where penalties have been applied under other systems.
Senator Moncion: I read another report, according to which, Air Canada is trying to make an effort. However, if there are no penalties and no one hears about them — we hear about situations, but I do not know if there have been any penalties — for a company like Air Canada, what stings is when there are penalties to be paid that hit their profits. Have there been penalties?
Ms. Saikaley: I know there have been for the Competition Tribunal. However, the discussion is about significant sums. I do not know whether Parliament would impose sums of that magnitude. If not, yes, under other systems, there have been penalties. I do not know the amounts, but I do know that it is done.
Senator Moncion: Is this connected to language problems?
Ms. Saikaley: No, not necessarily.
Senator Mégie: Before the meeting, I read an article that said that Air Canada was complaining about the fact that they were the ones being targeted with penalties and that other airlines were not being addressed. Is this true? To what extent does the government have the authority to extend its recommendations on matters of official languages to other airlines?
Ms. Saikaley: The reason Air Canada is subject to official languages obligations is precisely because it is a company that was built with public funds. When it became subject to the first Official Languages Act, it was a Crown corporation. When it was privatized in 1988, one of the conditions imposed by Parliament was that it continues to be subject to the Official Languages Act.
Moreover, in 2012, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages asked the Minister of Transport to consider the possibility of imposing obligations on other airlines. It was one of the projects that unfortunately fell by the wayside. So it would be up to Parliament to determine whether it wished to impose obligations on other airlines. However, I do not think that this would remove Air Canada's obligations. It is essential that it remain subject to its obligations.
Senator Boisvenu: Firstly, thank you very much for your submission, which is very interesting. In fact, when Air Canada was privatized, it had obligations. I am trying to understand how a legislator, following the breach of a commitment, could impose a coercive approach, that is, impose a fine on this airline, and not on the others. Don't you feel that it would quickly be defeated in a court of appeal?
Ms. Saikaley: No, I do not think so. This is why we are requesting amendment of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, and not the Official Languages Act. Since this act applies strictly to Air Canada, implemented following its privatization, amendments to this act would enable the regulations to apply only to Air Canada.
Senator Boisvenu: Is there an alternative to a coercive approach?
Ms. Saikaley: This is what all commissioners, one after the other, have attempted to do over the past 50 years. They have used all means at their disposal to try to convince Air Canada to meet its obligations. Today, we are calling on Parliament because we realize that these means have not produced the desired results. We still receive the same complaints that we were receiving 20 or 30 years ago.
Senator Boisvenu: What is your relationship with Air Canada or its administrators like when you follow up on the complaints?
Ms. Saikaley: At the employee level, there is good cooperation concerning the management of complaints. Nevertheless, recommendations are made and action plans are implemented, but concrete results are not being seen in the field. Yes, there are improvements, and that is what Air Canada would tell you, but, unfortunately, they are not across the board and do not reflect full compliance with the act. It is as though sometimes the service is provided and sometimes not; sometimes there is active offer, sometimes not. We receive complaints and we must tell the individuals that their complaints are well founded, but that unfortunately nothing changes despite our recommendations. So these are not lasting changes.
Senator Boisvenu: What does the complaints curve for the past ten years look like? Is it steady or are there variations?
Ms. Saikaley: It is fairly steady, but this year, the number of complaints is probably equal to those of the past two years combined. For this year, we have had about a hundred complaints. However, it is not only about complaints. Essentially, the complaints are an indicator, but we know that not all clients and not all Canadians complain whenever they do not receive a service.
We recently conducted an investigation. There were two unilingual flight attendants who were not able to offer service in French, and they were then assigned to 200 bilingual flights. We received only one complaint, but in examining the situation more closely, there may be one complaint per 200 infractions.
Senator Boisvenu: What do the people in charge at Air Canada tell you? If the people at the top are not committed, those below them will not be either. It is a question of not only managing bilingualism, but also allocating staff, and that is incumbent on management.
Ms. Saikaley: Absolutely. The president of Air Canada appeared before the House of Commons committee following our report in June. He wanted all airlines to be subject to the act. According to him, efforts are being made, capacity problems exist, the search for bilingual employees poses challenges, and flight assignments are discussed with the unions. These are good arguments, but Air Canada is subject to the act and it is a quasi-constitutional act. After all these years, the company should be able to meet its obligations.
The Acting Chair: I note that the chair of our committee, Senator Claudette Tardif, has joined us.
Senator Tardif: Good evening. My apologies for being late. I had to submit a budget request for our committee. Welcome.
Senator Fraser: I believe that I have been hearing about these complaints for about fifty years. It is very hard.
What is the proportion of flights, or other operations, where Air Canada comes into contact with the public and which, according to the Act, must be bilingual, in bilingual regions or on bilingual air routes?
Ms. Saikaley: The proportion of flights? I do not know whether we have that kind of information, but we can obtain it.
Senator Fraser: That could be of benefit to the committee, because Air Canada employs people who are capable of working in both official languages, and we have an idea of the proportion of their staff that is capable of working in both languages, but I don't know to what extent this corresponds to the needs, and it could be helpful to know.
I believe that Air Canada told the House of Commons committee that they had observed an improvement in the situation, and that they had received fewer complaints. However, you are telling us that, this year, the number is skyrocketing. Why? Is it the same thing that keeps coming back or has there been a change in the type of complaints filed?
Ms. Saikaley: No, I cannot say that there has been a change in the type of complaints. It is still the same kind of complaints that are received. It is difficult to explain why, one year, we receive more complaints than others. One of the reasons could be related to the tabling of our report to Parliament. People who are interested in the issue may have decided to file a complaint as a result. However, we know that others will not file a complaint.
Senator Fraser: Of course. I, myself, had an experience several years ago that made me furious and left a bad taste in my mouth, but I did not file a complaint. I should have filed a complaint, but I didn't. Life goes on, and we get caught up in other matters.
Has the government responded to the last report on Air Canada by the former Commissioner of Official Languages?
Ms. Saikaley: No, because we tabled a special report to Parliament, recommending that it be studied by either of the committees in the House or Senate.
Senator Fraser: And here we are. That should not have prevented the government from making some sort of statement, but it did not do so.
Ms. Saikaley: No.
Senator Fraser: All right! Thank you very much.
The Acting Chair: There appears to be a long-standing disagreement between you and the Courts Administration Service concerning the interpretation of the Official Languages Act. In reading the commissioner's report, I note that it highlights the Courts Administration Service's breaches of Part IV of the act, which deals with communications and services to the public, with regard to language and the posting of decisions. Conversely, the Courts Administration Service contends that its obligations in this respect arise from Part III of the act, which covers the administration of justice, and not Part IV. This difference in interpretation therefore results in legal uncertainty.
Could you describe for us the measures taken up to now to try to resolve the disagreement?
Ms. Saikaley: Absolutely. Firstly, we have been receiving complaints for many years. We started an investigation of this situation in 2007. We held several discussions with the Courts Administration Service. Commissioner Fraser even held meetings with chief justices to try to resolve the dispute, and, unfortunately, in 2015, we produced our investigation report indicating that the complaints were founded under Part IV. We recommended that the institution take all necessary measures to ensure that decisions published on federal court websites be posted simultaneously in both languages.
We were refused. The service said that it would not implement our recommendations. Then, we prepared a report for the Governor-in-Council asking the government to take the case to the Supreme Court to clarify the obligations, or to take steps to amend the act in order to clarify the obligations under the Official Languages Act. After this, we received a letter from the Minister of Justice indicating that the government preferred to find a practical solution to the problem. This is the only response we received last summer. This is why we submitted our report to Parliament: we are still receiving complaints. In our opinion, when the Courts Administration Service publishes decisions on websites, it is communicating with the public. That is not part of the judicial process. It is a bit complex to understand, because insofar as Part III is concerned, which deals with the administration of justice — or section 20 — a decision can be rendered in only one language. However, when we talk about rendering a decision, it involves making it available to the public. So that is rendering a decision. Once the decision is rendered, the judicial process ends there. The decision is then transmitted to be published. It is said that the action of publishing the decision is a communication with the public. If it were part of the judicial process — as the Courts Administration Service would have us believe — the service would have the right to render the decision in only one official language and provide a translation of the decision a short time later, and not upon publication of the decision. This is the source of the disagreement, because the service believes that posting the decision on the website is an extension of the judicial process. It is said that Canadians do not have access to decisions in both official languages at the same time, simultaneously, and this is a problem of access to justice because several months can go by, and even years, before a translation is available on the federal court websites.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your response, Ms. Saikaley.
[English]
Senator Bovey: I'd like to go back to Air Canada for a moment. I'd like to know how much of the problem is one of training. What tools does Air Canada have to train staff in another official language?
Following on to that, I'd like to know what responses you have had from the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the Minister of Transport on these issues.
Ms. Saikaley: As far as training is concerned, our understanding is they have a lot of tools. They have developed a lot of tools over the years. They train their staff and provide them with tools that they can use so that if they're not bilingual, for example, they can refer to a colleague. Most of the time, when the complaints are founded, the explanation we get is, "Oh, well, we trained them. We gave them the information. We don't understand." So we make the recommendation to ensure that they retrain them and inform them that they have obligations.
I don't think it's a question of not having the tools to train their people. I don't know, maybe it's the staff that don't want to do it, but in terms of training, we have a lot of information telling us that they are training their staff.
As to an answer from the Ministers of Canadian Heritage and Transport, we didn't get an answer. As I mentioned earlier, the action we decided to take was to table the report to Parliament in order to have one of the committees study the question again and decide on the appropriate step forward.
The Acting Chair: Do you have anything else, Senator Bovey?
Senator Bovey: I don't think so. I think I'm out of depth.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: You have given us a very good presentation with a lot of information. You have spoken about the question of imposing the same obligations on other airlines. According to your experience, could that improve air service for Canadians? We are speaking here about Toronto-Quebec City and Montreal-Bathurst, the two routes most used by bilingual customers. What measures could be taken by other airlines to respect the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Saikaley: Airlines like WestJet are hiring more and more bilingual staff. They want to capture a share of the Montreal market, among others. If these airlines make an effort, or report that they are in a position to recruit bilingual staff, I assume that this is quite possible. Could that create a capacity problem at some point? Air Canada believes that it is a problem of capacity, that it has trouble recruiting bilingual employees in certain regions. Could this aggravate the problem? I do not know. It is a good question. I know that several federal institutions have let us know that they have trouble recruiting bilingual staff.
Senator Mockler: You said that the complaints are an indicator of what happens on board an airplane, and also to have better communications. What are the other factors that influence service?
Ms. Saikaley: I am not sure I understand your question. Do you mean concerning measures that we could take?
Senator Mockler: I mean concerning the Official Languages Act.
Ms. Saikaley: That is more or less what we indicated in our report. There are perhaps other options that would allow Air Canada to better meet its obligations. Unfortunately, all the tools available to the Commissioner of Official Languages have been used in the case of Air Canada: investigations, audits, performance report cards, meetings and court challenges. We have taken all measures available to us.
Senator Mockler: This is why, on page 4 of your presentation this evening, you say that the situation has not changed much.
Ms. Saikaley: That is correct.
Senator Mockler: Are there other options that could be considered in order to strengthen the company's obligations under the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Saikaley: As far as I am concerned, the four options indicated in the report deserve to be examined. I do not see other options that would be available under the act. We have used all means, including reports to Parliament and court intervention. This is why we are before your committee today. We believe we have used all tools available to us. We see no others at this time.
Senator Mockler: This is why you say that the Official Languages Act should be amended. Personally, I use another term, with all due respect to the terminology you have used. When I speak about the Official Languages Act at the national level, because I believe that it may be necessary one day to consider modernizing the act, I think about integrating new methods of communication, especially social networks. A comprehensive study has been done on social media. Are you ready to propose the modernization of the Official Languages Act today?
Ms. Saikaley: Modernizing the Official Languages Act is certainly an option, but we could also amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which specifically concerns Air Canada. It is a question that comes back to Parliament. Should the Commissioner of Official Languages be given specific powers to deal with Air Canada, or would it be necessary to broaden the commissioner's power in general or review the manner in which services are provided in accordance with the act? Yes, this is a question for Parliament.
The Acting Chair: Certainly, it is clear that the power of the Commissioner of Official Languages should be strengthened. Moreover, that is one of the recommendations.
Ms. Saikaley: In fact, one of the recommendations is to grant more power to the Commissioner of Official Languages to deal with Air Canada matters.
Senator Tardif: Ms. Saikaley, please accept my congratulations on your appointment as interim commissioner.
My question is in the same vein as that of Senator Mockler. You have indicated that the Commissioner of Official Languages has used all means. In your opinion, what legislative amendments could be made in order to maintain Air Canada's linguistic obligations, in spite of any restructuring that may take place?
Ms. Saikaley: As is mentioned in the report, we wanted to propose certain options that already exist, for example, the power to issue orders and binding agreements. Instead of having only the power to make recommendations, we would have the power to enter into an agreement with Air Canada under which they would commit to implement the recommendations. That is what is called a binding agreement. Naturally, if such power were in place and Air Canada did not implement the recommendations, the Commissioner of Official Languages could go to court and request that Air Canada be ordered to implement the recommendations. This measure goes a bit further than what we have at present.
We have also spoken about the possibility of the court ordering payment of damages, which would be advantageous for complainants. They would receive compensation when the complaints were founded. This could be in the form of fines. There is also another model that is similar to a fine, namely a financial penalty which, without necessarily being punitive, motivates federal institutions to comply with the law. It is a symbolic amount, a fine you must pay that indicates you have broken the law.
Senator Tardif: In your opinion, do the suggestions you are telling us about also apply to Air Canada's international flights?
Ms. Saikaley: This is a question that has already been raised. I believe, moreover, that Mr. Dion had submitted a bill on this issue. It is not a matter that we looked into. Do you have something to add, Pascale?
Pascale Giguère, General Counsel and Director, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: I wish to add that, among the four options presented in the report, the only one that could be a problem concerning the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada is the option of damages. However, with regard to the other three options presented in the report, there is nothing preventing them from being applied to national and international flights.
Senator Tardif: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: We shall now proceed to the second round of questions.
Senator Moncion: I have two questions, one of which is still about Air Canada, and the other, about decisions made by the courts.
Air Canada is now a private company, right?
Ms. Saikaley: Yes.
Senator Moncion: Its commitment to offer services in French dates back to 1988. At present, it is obligated to offer services in French, and what we are seeing is the emergence of other airlines that do not have that obligation but that want to start offering services in French in order to gain some of Air Canada's turf. If Air Canada were no longer subject to this bilingualism obligation, do you think it could offer more services in French? Right now, it is obligated to do so and is therefore reluctant. To maintain its customer base and competitiveness, would it be more apt to want to offer better service if it were not subject to the obligation to offer services in French?
Ms. Saikaley: That is a good question. I do not know whether it sees it in the same way when its calls for everybody to be subject to the same rules. Perhaps, but it is a question that Parliament must answer.
When Air Canada was privatized, Parliament wanted to have rules in place to ensure that the airline would continue to offer services in both official languages. It is a question that Parliament must consider if it wishes to remove this obligation from Air Canada.
Senator Moncion: Regarding Canadian private companies, few of them are obligated to offer services in both languages. This may be a stumbling block for Air Canada. It is also possible that the company may see the way it is being treated as unfair.
I am not opposed to the fact that Air Canada has the obligation to offer its services in both languages. I travel a lot in Northern Ontario, and I always get services in both languages without a problem. Even between Ottawa and Toronto, I don't have this problem. This is why I am surprised but not astonished.
My second question has more to do with the courts. When decisions are rendered in French, are they posted in French on the website or are they translated into English? I have the same question about decisions rendered in English. Are they posted on the site without being translated into French? Is there any discrimination in how this is done, or quite simply, is a case that is heard in French presented in French and one that is heard in English presented in English?
Ms. Saikaley: Decisions are posted in the language in which they were rendered, but the vast majority are in English.
Senator Moncion: Indeed, decisions in English come from the rest of Canada, in the same way that the majority of decisions rendered in French would come more from Quebec. Does Quebec have this constraint?
Ms. Saikaley: What constraint?
Senator Moncion: The constraint of translation. In Quebec, I believe the decisions involve the civil code, and in the rest of Canada, it is common law.
In effect, the majority of cases are heard in English, but in Quebec, do the courts have to translate their decisions, and, if so, do they actually do it?
Ms. Saikaley: We are talking about decisions of the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Tax Court of Canada. These are the three courts we deal with in our report.
Senator Moncion: All right. In that case, I would like to go a bit further. Are the decisions not being translated for reasons related to cost?
Ms. Saikaley: That is not the reason we are given. As I was saying, it is a question of interpretation of the law, and that is where the dispute lies. In other words, the courts argue that they apply Part III of the act, meaning section 20, under which a decision can be rendered in one language and then translated. As you can see, in our report, we have even included the positions of the parties, because they insisted this be done, and they did not bring up the issue of translation costs.
Senator Moncion: Ultimately, it is that the courts do not translate what is done in English or what is done in French.
Ms. Saikaley: They translate them eventually, but sometimes with great delay.
Senator Boisvenu: I hope that my questions are not taboo for the committee. If we classify the complaints related to Air Canada by region, Western Canada, Ontario and the East, how do the complaints about the application of the Official Languages Act break down? Do most of them come from one region in particular?
Ms. Saikaley: I do not believe we have that data, but we can obtain it.
Senator Boisvenu: Yes, that would be interesting.
My other question concerns the law courts. Do the complaints related to the use of both official languages deal strictly with translation of texts, or do they involve the relationship between the courts and citizens? These courts can have a relationship with citizens because, if I understood correctly, it is citizens who appeal the decisions. As part of day-to-day administration, is there respect for the official languages or is it strictly related to the translation of texts on the website?
Ms. Saikaley: The complaints we receive and the issue of our report strictly deal with court decisions and their translation, namely the fact that they are not available in both official languages simultaneously.
Senator Boisvenu: Is the proportion of texts translated from French to English the same as that from English to French?
Ms. Saikaley: No. As I was saying earlier, there are many more decisions that are rendered in English; so it is certain that the proportion of texts translated from English to French is much larger than those translated from French into English, as there are few decisions rendered in French.
Senator Boisvenu: All right. Thank you very much.
Senator Fraser: Before asking my question, I should clarify, in all fairness, that for several years now, when I travel abroad with Air Canada, normally departing from Montreal or returning to Montreal, I have noted that the staff take great pride in offering services in both official languages. So it's not all doom and gloom. Given that I spoke of a bad experience I had, I thought it necessary to put things into perspective.
Regarding the law courts, are they subject to the translation service provided by Public Services and offered government-wide, or do they have their own translation service?
Ms. Giguère: According to the information we have, they have a certain number of in-house translators, as well as freelance translators. I do not know what proportion of the courts do business with the Translation Bureau; I believe it is a small proportion. There are many terms that are very specific in decisions rendered, so the translators they work with are generally translators who specialize in the terminology used by the courts.
Senator Fraser: I asked that question because, you probably know better than anyone else, there is a lot of controversy surrounding that system. No doubt, you are aware that when Minister Foote appeared before the committee, she promised to work towards greater commitment and better service at the technical level.
I have a second and final question. Do you think that there, as elsewhere, there is a shortage of translators? In fact, it is a very specialized field of work. I have a friend who specializes in this field, and when I hear her talk about it, I can't get over it. I am trying to understand whether there is simply resistance with regard to which part of the act applies to the institution or whether there are other, more material factors contributing to the difficulty you have noted.
Ms. Saikaley: Perhaps it would be a good idea to invite them to appear and ask whether they do indeed have capacity problems. Also, in the last budget, the government granted them two million dollars over two years. Is that sufficient and will it enable them to resolve the problem permanently? Or is it simply a one-off situation or a symbolic gesture? Unfortunately, we are not in a position to say, on their behalf, whether it adequately addresses their capacity problem.
Senator Fraser: But they did not mention that aspect as being a problem, right?
Ms. Saikaley: No.
Senator Fraser: So, it is strictly a legal argument. Thank you very much.
Senator Mockler: I would like to follow up on the questions raised by Senator Boisvenu concerning complaints according to regions. I have already had a brief conversation with the president of Air Canada. He tells me it is 0.000033. I said that that was very good and an interesting statistic, but I would like to refer to the number of passengers Air Canada flies. The number of passengers in 2014 — which increased in 2015 and 2016 — was 38.5 million passengers. With a factor of 0.000033, that makes 1,270 complaints. If I go back to 2000, out of 30 million passengers that year, there were 990 complaints. One complaint is one too many.
You have mentioned this evening, and I grant you, that we have not been able, with the previous commissioners of official languages, to have them tell us what they were able to do about even one complaint. What do you recommend we do, as parliamentarians, considering these 1,270 complaints that have gone unanswered?
Ms. Saikaley: I think our report proposes certain options that we invite you to examine carefully. As I said, the number of complaints is only one indicator. As you know, we have conducted audits and performance report cards. We have used other tools that have given us other information, which has shown that, even if there is no complaint, the service is not necessarily provided or is not equal everywhere. I do not think the Official Languages Act requires federal institutions to "make an effort" to meet their obligations. The law indicates that they must meet their obligations.
Senator Mockler: That is right. They must meet their obligations.
Senator Tardif: The 2012 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages presented several recommendations. I must say that, unfortunately, there was not much follow-up from Air Canada, and the recommendations were not implemented. In that sense, it is a disappointment.
But I would like to come back to the question of the Courts Administration Service. I believe there was a recent budget announcement indicating that two million dollars over two years would be paid to CAS. Do you think this could rectify the problem? Is it a financial problem, or as you said earlier, is it a situation that has more to do with the question of interpretation of the law, meaning that a financial investment will not be enough?
Ms. Saikaley: It is certain that, if the service does not reconsider its position, if it continues to assert that rendering a decision and publishing it on the internet is part of the justice administration process, it will not change its behaviour. If there is more money to have the decisions translated, perhaps the translations will be done faster, but that does not change the fact that the two versions of the decisions, French and English, will not be disseminated simultaneously on the website in the majority of cases.
We are talking about a budget of two million dollars over two years. We have no idea whether that will be enough. The investment is not ongoing, and is for only two years. It is thus not provided for the long term. What will happen once this sum of two million dollars runs out and the two years are over? If the service maintains the same position, the behaviour will continue and decisions will continue to be posted in only one language. In our opinion, that does not resolve the problem because it is a matter of interpretation of the law. Neither the budget nor the money will resolve the issue. We do not know whether that meets a need. That is why we are requesting that the law be clarified: so that we may continue to pursue our work regarding the investigations. When people complain and decisions are not available in both languages, in three, four or five years, it will have to be ensured that we don't face the same problem if CAS has no money to translate decisions.
Senator Tardif: Thank you, Commissioner, for that clarification.
The Acting Chair: If there are no other questions, that brings our time to a close.
Thank you for speaking to us about the two reports that were published by the commissioner, the first concerning Air Canada, and the second regarding the Courts Administration Service.
I would ask the members of the committee to remain to discuss the work plan proposed by Marie-Ève for the next few months.
(The committee continued in camera.)