[Translation]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 8, 2001
• 1530
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to begin today's meeting which once again brings us here to look at the matter of services in English and in French provided by Air Canada and its subsidiaries.
Today we have with us officials from Treasury Board Secretariat. I would particularly like to point out the presence of Ms. Diana Monnet, Assistant Secretary, Official Languages Branch at Treasury Board Secretariat who has shown up here despite a visibly very bad leg. We thank you, Ms. Monnet, for honouring our schedule. One must understand that we will rather be busy between now and the end of the session. As a committee, we hope that we'll be able to present our report to the House and the Senate.
Your absence today would have made that extremely difficult for us. Ms. Monnet twisted her ankle rather badly. I'm very thankful for your being here as you are the designated person at Treasury Board Secretariat for matters concerning official languages.
I would ask you to introduce your colleagues and go ahead with your presentation. We will then proceed with the questions.
Ms. Diana Monnet (Assistant Secretary, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat): Agreed. Thank you very much.
[English]
Madam Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and mesdames et messieurs, I'll be using both official languages today. I would like to start by saying how pleased I am to be here and to have the opportunity to meet and speak with you in my capacity as assistant secretary of the Official Languages Branch within the Treasury Board Secretariat.
I'll present to you my colleagues, who are here today to support me in more ways than one: Mr. Joe Ricciardi, our senior adviser, policy and products division; Ms. Anne Boudreault, our legal counsel within the secretariat; and Mr. Gérald Groulx, our adviser responsible for Air Canada.
I'm given to understand that your committee has three main sets of concerns regarding the official languages regulations that apply to Air Canada and its subsidiaries. First, how do these regulations fit in the more general framework of the Official Languages Act and the regulations on official languages? Second, what happens with the complaints from the public? And third, how do we see the implementation of the regulations? Accordingly, before replying to any questions you might have, I thought it would be useful to touch briefly on each of these three points.
As my colleagues from Transport Canada indicated to you last week, Air Canada and, through it, its subsidiaries, are subject to part IV of the Official Languages Act, which deals with service to the public. These obligations reflect section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which forms the basis for services in both official languages, using the concept of headquarters or central office, significant demand, and nature of the office.
The concept of nature of the office covers standardized announcements for the travelling public concerning safety and health, which, as you know, must always be assured in both official languages. The concept of significant demand is the one that applies specifically to the case that interests us today.
The act stipulates that this concept applies to services to travellers but it leaves up to the regulations to establish the circumstances where these services must be offered in both official languages. However, the act stipulates that the government could take the following elements into account when evaluating significant demand: the official language minority community population in the area served; the particular characteristics of this minority; its proportion in relation to the total population; the volume of communications and services provided in one or another language; and any other appropriate criteria.
[Translation]
With the help of these criteria, the Regulations on official languages determine the offices of federal institutions which are required to provide services in the two official languages. These offices are subsequently listed in our data bank, called Burolis, accessible to all, notably via the Internet.
The rules established by the regulations cover all the details of the entire gamut of federal services. The Regulations are a coherent and balanced framework which, during its development, was the object of very wide consultations with official language minority communities, federal institutions and Parliament.
• 1535
As certain of your members surely recall, your committee
played a determining role in this regard.
The Act and the Regulations on official languages were conceived in such a way as to provide services in English and in French in a balanced and fair manner towards our official languages minority communities. The Act and the Regulations are there to protect them.
The legislation enables Canadians to exercise their right to receive federal services in the official language of their choice. The act also stipulates that the language requirements of positions must be objectively required when a staffing action is undertaken.
If you wish, we are prepared to share with you, at another time, the other details of the structure of the regulations, but suffice to say that, in most cases, the Regulations base themselves on a demographic criterion applied to the official language minority community which uses local federal services. However, for the travelling public, these criteria are not suitable. In fact, by definition travellers do not all live in the place where the facilities are found. Moreover, quite a gamut of communications and services are provided on board the means of transportation chosen, whether it be a train, a boat or an airplane, which is the means of transportation of concern to us today.
This is why the services provided by airlines subject to the Official Languages Act are regulated by two kinds of rules: one series based on demand and the other applies automatically, irrespective of the demand.
Services must automatically be provided in airports used by at least one million passengers per year and on all flights which begin, stopover, or finish in the National Capital Region, Montreal and Moncton; flights within Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick and flights between two or three of these provinces.
[English]
The demand must be at least 5% at the other airports and on the other routes. We also find this 5% criteria throughout the regulations for the rules based on demography as well as those based on demand.
During the development of the regulations, the official language minority communities, federal institutions, and Parliament considered this criteria satisfactory. It enables, notably, to ensure a coherence between the different rules and avoids establishing a bilingual capacity that would not be used.
In cases where federal institutions must measure the demand, they have to comply with the directives of the Treasury Board. These require that the demand be measured using professional, objective surveys conducted in consultation with my branch while ensuring that the results can be consulted by the public.
As stipulated by the regulations, Air Canada has already for a number of years measured the demand on its flights. Since its affiliates are definitely subject to the Official Languages Act, they are also conducting surveys on routes where the obligation is not automatic to determine, always according to the regulations, those that will require the provision of services in both languages.
I, along with the Air Canada officials responsible, will follow closely the results of the survey of the demand for services and of the implementation of the bilingual services that will follow. We will also continue to monitor the quality of the bilingual services on the flights where they must be enforced. However, in the final analysis, it is first and foremost Air Canada's responsibility, like any other institutions subject to the Official Languages Act, to implement it within the parameters of its mission. It does so in various ways.
For example, on its flights that have an obligation to offer its services in both official languages, it includes questions on its bilingual services when they are surveying client satisfaction.
• 1540
Concerning the question of complaints on official
languages and their results, travellers can, of course,
send their complaints first to Air Canada. It then
becomes Air Canada's responsibility to apply corrective
measures and to ensure follow-up. If the traveller is
not satisfied with the response that Air Canada has
provided, he or she can address the Commissioner of
Official Languages.
The law is specific as to the powers it gives to the commissioner in this instance, including that of investigating complaints with federal institutions. The investigations that the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages conducts are twofold: first, investigation of complaints, and second, conduct of audits.
I am sure that Madame Adam, the commissioner, will provide you with all of the details of her work on the subject.
[Translation]
As for the Official Languages Branch, our role is to support the Treasury Board in carrying out the mandate conferred on it int the Official Languages Act: the general direction and coordination of federal policies and programs relating to the implementation of Parts IV, V and VI in all federal institutions except the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament. As an example of our work, we have written policies to implement the Act, such as a policy on the active offer of service in both official languages, which applies to Air Canada. We monitor and audit federal institutions' compliance with official languages principles, guidelines and regulations. In fact, an audit is now underway at some airports “where there is significant demand”.
To conclude, with regard to applying the Act and the Regulations, everyone around the table would like federal institutions to meet their obligations in an exemplary manner with no errors. We work every day with institutions to achieve this objective, and will continue to do so.
Of course, I am available to answer your questions, specifically those regarding Air Canada's obligations.
As well, in your information kit, there is a small deck in very large print which explains in further detail Air Canada's services and obligations under the Official Languages Act and the regulations. If you would allow me, I could perhaps take two more minutes to go through this because it sheds some light on the obligations regarding services and communications with the public in both official languages.
Page 2 outlines Air Canada's obligations in airports. There is an automatic obligation to provide all its services in both official languages at all airports that serve one million passengers per year. At other airports, this obligation exists when the airport has a demand of 5% over a year.
As regards Air Canada's obligations on the routes, there is an automatic obligation to provide bilingual services on the following routes: within Ontario, within Quebec and within New Brunswick, or routes serving Ottawa, Montreal and Moncton. For other routes, the obligation exists to provide services when there is a demand of 5% over a year.
Air Canada's services other than in airports or on routes include services for tickets and reservations or air freight services provided at offices in cities and towns. These offices are subject to the same provisions in the regulations that apply to offices that serve the general public: for example, the provisions based on demographic criteria.
Other bilingual services required by the regulations that apply to Air Canada are the following: for those related to the nature of the office, services offered by a toll-free telephone number that serves one or more entire provinces, all health, safety and security signage and standardized announcements on board aircraft and in other installations and correspondence services.
There you have an idea of the regulations regarding Air Canada in particular.
We are prepared to take your questions. Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. We shall begin with Mr. Reid.
• 1545
[English]
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Ms. Monnet, and thanks to all the other witnesses who are here this afternoon. I have just three questions, all of them technical.
To start with, you mentioned surveys being conducted in order to determine how much demand there is. I'm wondering if you could tell me a little bit about the surveys, how they're done and what they consist of. You mentioned the results were publicly available. I'm wondering how one gets access to those results if one wants to take a look at them.
Ms. Diana Monnet: I'll ask my colleague, who's the expert in that area.
Mr. Gérald Groulx (Program Officer, Official Languages Branch, Programs and Liaison, Treasury Board Secretariat): The Treasury Board Secretariat has issued a directive that requires institutions to perform a survey in order to determine if there is to be a demand for services in both official languages. This directive was issued in 1993 and is applicable to all of the federal institutions.
It requires the institution to perform several—
Mr. Scott Reid: I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I wanted to know, if I'm a customer on the route, what the survey looks like. Is it simply someone coming up and stopping me in the airport and saying, “What language would you prefer to get service in?”, or...?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: It's a questionnaire that is being handed out to the passenger as the passenger boards the airplane. The questionnaire is handed out by an agent of the company. The passenger is requested to fill out the questionnaire. The questionnaire is in both official languages and it states the purpose of the questionnaire. The questionnaire is handed back to the agent on the way out of the plane. The questionnaire is then handed to a third party, who will analyse the results.
The results of the surveys are then given to Air Canada, and Air Canada will then determine on which of the routes there is to be an obligation for services in both official languages. They will then inform the Treasury Board Secretariat of which routes.
Mr. Scott Reid: Earlier Ms. Monnet had mentioned that the results were publicly available. If we wanted to see them, where would we look?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: Yes, the results are publicly available, and they will become so in June sometime, when they are given to us by Air Canada. They are the responsibility of Air Canada and they would have to be provided to you on request.
Mr. Scott Reid: This survey has been done in the past, I assume, in order to determine which airports have more than 5% demand. I'm gathering this from the fact that there's a list here that includes Sept-Îles, North Bay, Windsor, etc. And those results are currently publicly available?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: The results for the airports where there is a public demand for services?
Mr. Scott Reid: I assume you did this everywhere. There's a list here of places that have significant demand and places that don't, and I'm just wondering if the results of those surveys are publicly available if I wanted to take a look at them.
Mr. Gérald Groulx: Joe.
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi (Senior Program Officer, Official Languages Branch, Policy and Products, Treasury Board Secretariat): All of the information as to what offices have the obligation to serve in both official languages is contained in a computerized system known as Burolis. That is on the Treasury Board site. You can consult it at any time to find out which offices are—
Mr. Scott Reid: Simply by looking at the Internet and going to the site.
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Yes. It will tell you, for example, in Vancouver what offices have an obligation to serve in both languages. That also goes for the routes.
Mr. Scott Reid: Does it in fact indicate what the percentages were, whether it was 5% or 7% or 3% or 20% or whatever it might happen to be? Does it contain that information?
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: I believe it does, yes.
Ms. Diana Monnet: At a lot of these airports there are over a million passengers, as well.
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Yes. That's a point we should perhaps address immediately.
• 1550
Obviously, for the airports that have 1 million, no
surveys were done. It was felt that there was enough
information on the basis of several million people
going through—these were national airports, major
installations—that it was not necessary to survey. It
was assumed that 5% would be present.
Mr. Scott Reid: Okay. Thank you.
Do I have any time left or have I used it all up?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You have about a minute.
Mr. Scott Reid: Very quickly, then, let's assume that a new airline starts a competing service on some routes served by Air Canada. Could the situation arise in which Air Canada would be required to provide services in both languages but the other competing airline would not for the same service on the same routes?
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: If the airline is not subject to the Official Languages Act, that is possible, yes.
Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to talk to you about equitable representation. Part VIII of the Official Languages Act deals with the responsibilities and duties of Treasury Board. You are the one who is responsible for organising and coordinating the enforcement of federal programs. You are responsible for monitoring and assessing the so-called federal institutions. You forward reports to the Commissioner of Official Languages at the end of the financial year, on the information that you have received.
I became interested in the issue last year. I wrote to Air Canada because I received complaints. The Gens de l'air have come to see me to say that there were no francophone pilots, no opportunities for advancement. I have looked into this more closely. I wrote Air Canada, to Mr. Douglas Port, the first vice-president of Air Canada, who responded by letter that there was no under-representation of francophones in the staff of Air Canada.
However, the facts, as I read them, would seem to indicate the opposite. When it comes to equitable participation of francophones and anglophones within Air Canada, their reports contained a great number of unknowns. We were told last year, that of 22,000 Air Canada employees, 45.7% were anglophone, 16.6% were francophone and that 37.7%, were unknown, in other words they were likely people who did not want to reveal what language they spoke. Is that correct?
Ms. Diana Monnet: Those are the figures that we have.
Mr. Gérald Groulx: You are partly right. The figures that you are quoting are from 1998.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Tell me how I am partly wrong.
Mr. Gérald Groulx: You are right, except that in 1999, the percentage was somewhat lower.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I'm talking about 1999, later than 1988.
In 1999, of 22,000 employees, 45.7% described themselves as anglophone, 16.6% described themselves as francophone and 37.7% said: “We are not going to tell you”.
Mr. Gérald Groulx: It is true that there is a problem with respect to the figures. We are aware of this and in our response to their report, we asked Air Canada to rectify this situation in order to ensure that the figures be reported as required by the Treasury Board Secretariat on December 31, 2000. Thus, we hope to be able to rectify the situation that you described.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I understand. I would like to know if you are using a carrot or a stick. They give you figures. They tell you that more than more than one third of the people did not answer the question. Thus, depending on how you look at it, the figures are more or less credible.
There are performance indicators to better assess the impact of government programs on official language communities.
A change of topic. Air Canada is subject to the regulatory provisions on language of service. They are based on the concept of significant demand and not on “where numbers warrant”. True or false?
• 1555
My question is the following. Your presentation explained
fairly well, in my opinion, what “significant demand” means.
However, you inferred in your comment, and I will quote you:
I thought that they were subject to all of the act. When you mention Part IV like this, you could say “notwithstanding Part IV”. Then, I would understand.
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Senator Gauthier, it is true that in our presentation, we used a shortcut to say it more succinctly, but Bill C-26 did bring about clarifications for the enforcement of section 25 with Air Canada, with respect to subsidiaries defined in a certain manner. True, we did not state that Part IV applied, but it is through section 25 that Air Canada must comply.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I apologize, it is because I do not have much time, and the chair will tell me that my time is up. I have one last question for now.
Last week we heard from witnesses from Transport Canada. I must tell you that I wasn't very satisfied with the answers they provided to my questions. I asked them whether there was an agreement with the Official Languages Commissioner with respect to the processing of complaints. I was told that there was no such agreement. The Commissioner, however, in a report said that there was one. I subsequently telephoned the Commissioner, and I was told that there was an agreement, and that the person who had answered my question was mistaken. Thank you.
Secondly, we are told that Air Canada is a federal institution. Yes or no? I was told that it was not. I believe that Mr. Pigeon said that this was the case. He said that Air Canada, although not a federal institution, was subject to the legislation. Fine.
Bill C-26, which was proclaimed last August, included all of the branches—this is the word he used—the companies which, along with Air Canada, serve the Canadian public. Do Air Canada's plans, namely its action plans including specific objectives, a schedule of activities and precise deadlines aimed at remedying the systematic problems that they have... They have a serious problem: they use information that is very, very difficult to understand. Do you verify these action plans and do you have the means to ensure that Air Canada will listen to you? In other words, are you part of the solution? If Air Canada continues to provide you with figures such as those it provided for equitable participation, with 37% being unknown, how can we continue to make claims that only 16% are francophones and 45% are anglophones? I don't understand anymore.
Ms. Diana Monnet: I will be very brief. Yes, we did ask Air Canada to submit its action plan to remedy the problem. Earlier, you asked us, in your first question, if we had a stick. Our stick isn't all that strong. Our only stick is to ask for spot checks and to continue, perhaps, talking to our Transport Canada colleagues about security matters. I will ask Gérald to—
Mr. Gérald Groulx: In theory, that's the way it works. Monitoring is done in various ways: we analyze the annual report on official languages that Air Canada submits to us; we periodically do checks in the regions to ascertain the availability of service to the public in both official languages at certain offices, institutions, including the Air Canada offices; we do targeted verifications, such as the verification of service to the public in airports. In theory, the Treasury Board Secretariat recognizes that Air Canada must be accountable, and it is up to Air Canada to ensure that the subsidiaries providing services on its behalf are managed properly.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. We will now turn to Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
My first comment pertains to the Maple Leaf Lounge Air Canada card that is sent out to members of Parliament. There are numbers on the back of the card. I called Montreal and was greeted in English only. That is my first comment. The same thing applies to other areas: Halifax, Winnipeg. In Ottawa, the people answer in English only as well.
• 1600
My first question pertains to the fact that we have
legislation on official languages, nice documents—these are all
very interesting, very relevant. But what authority do you have to
check whether or not the legislation is being enforced and
respected?
Ms. Diana Monnet: The legislation authorizes us to conduct verifications and spot checks to see whether or not people are abiding by the legislation.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Do you do this?
Ms. Diana Monnet: Yes. Right now a verification is underway in seven major airports in the country. This verification has almost been completed. But the answer is yes, we do this.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine. Last week, my colleague and friend Mario Laframboise asked about what type of sanctions or penalties were imposed should Air Canada not abide by the legislation, when passengers aren't served properly. Ms. Valérie Dufour, of Transport Canada, said that we should raise this question the following week, that it was a question for the Treasury Board Secretariat. And this week, you are telling us, as you indicated in your presentation, that should Air Canada not abide by the legislation, the complaint should be filed with Transport Canada, and if a satisfactory answer is not provided, the complaint should be filed with the Official Languages Commissioner. However, Transport Canada is saying that the complaint should be lodged with the Treasury Board Secretariat!
Let's say that I'm in the plane. I leave Montreal and my destination is Toronto. I am addressed in English only. As a citizen, I have a problem if I don't know where to file a complaint, don't I?
Ms. Diana Monnet: First of all, a complaint is filed with Air Canada. If the answer is not satisfactory, the individual always has the recourse of filing a complaint with the Official Languages Commissioner.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But Transport Canada told us that we should file the complaint with your organization.
Ms. Diana Monnet: It can made through us, but usually—
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It is clear that things are not clear.
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Yes. It should be pointed out that the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages is not obligated to forward the complaints it receives to us. And, in all likelihood, it is the office of the Commissioner that receives most of the complaints.
We are aware of the specific content of the complaints, at times because a department or Air Canada has asked us to discuss a complaint, but we have not been designated as the agency for dealing with complaints, as a complaints office would do, if I could use that example. Usually it is very difficult for us to have any direct control over the complaints that are—
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You are quite right. But if I complain to Air Canada, I am sent a form letter. Air Canada will tell me that I did not take the right flight, for example. There's always somebody bilingual on the other plane, but I never take the right plane. I'm not lucky.
I therefore forward my complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages and she does not in turn forward it on to you. But you are supposed to ensure that people comply with the legislation. How are you going to know that I filed a complaint, if you are not told about it? And more specially, are you going to enforce the legislation?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: We are working to establish direct links with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages so that we can be better informed about the complaints filed against the institutions and, in this specific case, against Air Canada. We do receive a file on complaints. It is up to us to take the necessary steps to remedy the problems that may be considered systemic.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Let's say that you come to the realization that there are one, two or three airports that don't provide the service. You prepare a report. One hundred and fifty days thereafter, Air Canada sends you its answer and, 200 days after that, Transport Canada sends you an answer... In other words, what happens after your verification if you realize that there are systemic problems in certain airports? I could provide you with some examples; I have lots of them.
Ms. Diana Monnet: If the complaint at hand, or the failure to provide service has an impact on health or safety, we raise the matter with our Transport Canada colleagues. At that point, they are—it is their sector—able to take concrete action. There may be fines, etc. I think that this issue was also raised last week.
• 1605
If the complaint does not deal with safety issues, we are the
ones that take action. We ask them to take concrete steps to
resolve the situation, to submit an action plan. However, we are
not authorized to force them to comply or to impose a fine.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Excuse me, but what's the point of having a law if Transport Canada, the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Treasury Board Secretariat cannot enforce it?
Tell me if I'm wrong, but it's like having a speed limit and not giving out speeding tickets.
Ms. Diana Monnet: An application can be made in the Federal Court of Canada. The Commissioner always has the option of taking a case to the Federal Court of Canada, which can hand down a ruling that requires the party in question, Air Canada, to take action. Consequently, there is a way to correct the situation, if Air Canada does not comply voluntarily to our satisfaction, or rather, in this case, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Your last question.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: How many cases have been referred to the Federal Court of Canada?
Ms. Diana Monnet: As far as Air Canada is concerned, I don't know. Is there someone who—
Mr. Gérald Groulx: I believe that there are currently three cases before the Federal Court of Canada. There were previously four.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Did these cases involve traveller safety?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: They involved the services provided by Air Canada.
Ms. Anne Boudreault (Counsel, Legal Services Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat): At the Halifax and Pearson airports, I believe.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We could perhaps ask our research staff to—
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You could perhaps try to find out the details and then inform committee members, please.
Mr. Drouin.
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Thank you both. Thank you for coming this afternoon to give us some insight into the process that is followed with regard to bilingualism in air transportation services.
You mentioned the problem of the limited power that you have, but safety is always an issue in some way if an employee is unable to explain what is happening to people in their language. This can be dangerous and cause problems. These people we always hear about, who have air rage—if I can describe them that way—if an employee cannot control them in their language, and they do not speak either of the two official languages, then this is a major problem.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Yes—which cassette do you use?
Some Hon. Members: Oh! Oh!
Mr. Claude Drouin: And the cassette isn't programmed for that. As Mr. Groulx pointed out, I think that it is important to have strict monitoring, to take concrete measures and to ensure that we are not consistently passing the buck between the Treasury Board Secretariat, Transport Canada and the Official Languages Commissioner. They should identify their respective roles and act quickly to ensure concrete steps are taken by all airline companies. In my view, Air Canada is not the only one affected; all airline companies should be capable of providing these services in both official languages.
I made a comment last week that was perhaps inappropriate, but I will repeat it nonetheless. We could require that public transportation companies provide bilingual services in 10 or 15 years, which would allow the companies to adapt over this time period. I think that something concrete could be done in this regard. I may be mistaken, because I try to practice both official languages and my English is still somewhat laboured.
You perhaps mentioned this in your presentation, but do airports having a volume of over one million, as well as airlines that are mentioned in the Act and regulations, have an obligation in terms of signage that is visible to the people using their services? When you arrive at Pearson Airport, for example, do you see signs indicating that services must be bilingual, and is the same true in Montreal, Vancouver and so on. If this were the case, there would be pressure on airports and on airline companies, and this pressure would ensure that the service in question was available. If they post notices but don't deliver the service, they look even more foolish.
It's more a comment than a question, but I believe that there are concrete steps that could be taken to improve service.
• 1610
Ms. Diana Monnet: Signage is mandatory. As for the comment regarding air rage, that's a good point. As you noted, there is no cassette for such circumstances. I think that's something we should take up with Transport Canada.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Do you mean that you will record a cassette?
Ms. Diana Monnet: No.
Mr. Claude Drouin: You said that there was signage. I must tell you that it must not be very visible, because I've never noticed it.
Mr. Gérald Groulx: It's not signage. If I understood your question correctly, you would like to see signs or panels that say: “This institution is required to provide service in both official languages”.
Mr. Claude Drouin: Yes.
Mr. Gérald Groulx: There aren't any like that. However, as Ms. Monnet said, these institutions do in fact have an obligation to offer the other services in both official languages.
Mr. Claude Drouin: We know that. But I think that we could require signs at airports and airlines, which would have the effect of pressuring the companies in a positive way so that they offer their services in both official languages.
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: I have a point of clarification. There may be cases where an institution has not been very diligent with regard to signage. However, the Official Languages Act requires, in certain offices, that there be a sign indicating that the institution offers its services in both official languages. So, it is not true that there is no requirement. The situation is that, in certain isolated cases, this requirement isn't met.
Mr. Claude Drouin: Thank you very much.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yvon Godin, my dear colleague, go ahead.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for coming today. In the next-to-last paragraph of your report, Ms. Monnet, you say:
I have trouble understanding that. If the law is there, what's the penalty? It's fine to work together, but I have been on the Official Languages Committee for four years and we always have the same problem. I'd like to know what the penalty is? Who applies it? Is it the Treasury Board Secretariat, Transport Canada, the Ombudsman, the Commissioner of Official Languages, etc.? Perhaps Radio-Canada could do a cassette for us.
Ms. Diana Monnet: To sum up, if health and safety are involved, Transport Canada is responsible. In the case of other services offered in both official languages, there is a whole series of possibilities, including Air Canada and the Commissioner. But ultimately, there is the possibility to apply to the court. The court can impose a solution.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Suppose I get on a plane. I don't speak a word of English. I sit down right beside the emergency door. The flight attendant comes over and explains how to remove the door in the event of an accident. I ask the attendant if I can take the door off while the plane is landing. Which cassette will she put on to tell me whether or not I should pull out the door? It becomes a safety issue.
Ms. Diana Monnet: Yes.
Mr. Yvon Godin: As is covered by the Official Languages Act, I try to communicate with the flight attendant who is paid by Air Canada. I want to communicate with this person. I'm giving you a concrete example. I'm sitting on the plane and I ask when I can remove the door—after hitting a tree or earlier, so I can jump out? What does the flight attendant say to me?
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: The official languages regulations contain provisions dealing with some of the aspects of the problem you have raised. However, these provisions apply only to institutions that are subject to the Official Languages Act. For example, if the airline was owned by another company, Transport Canada would be the final authority, because it has regulatory authority over all the airlines in matters of in-flight safety.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Last Friday, on May 4, at 2:35 p.m., I was on Air Canada flight number 1336 from Ottawa to Montreal. Surely there must be more than one million passengers in Montreal and Ottawa? Well, the flight attendant spoke only English, and the only French that I heard was on the precious cassette. When the plane arrived in Montreal, she said:
• 1615
[English]
“You can pick up your belongings at the Sky Chef as you get out of the plane.”
[Translation]
Or something like that; I'm not a good translator. I suppose that the francophones did not pick up their belongings because they didn't hear it on the cassette.
In addition, Yvon Charbonneau, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, was with me. He didn't find this to be a very healthy situation. I therefore told him that we should check whether the flight attendant spoke French. When we got close, we stopped, and I asked her where the airplane was heading after its stop.
[English]
She said, “Sorry, I don't speak French, and I don't speak enough to understand what you just told me.”
[Translation]
Who should I appeal to now? I sent a letter to the president of Air Canada. He'll eventually get tired of me, because I intend to send him one letter per week. But who should I turn to for a solution to the problem? Is it here, around this table, because we hope that this will be settled one day? How are we going to settle the problem once and for all? Air Canada wasn't born yesterday. Air Canada knew that there was an employee who didn't speak French on the flight.
I was at the Ottawa airport three weeks ago. I stood in line for a half hour before finally getting to the counter. I put myself in the place of a francophone who is arriving there. It could just as well be an anglophone. It's my turn, I begin to speak, and the person says to me: “I'm sorry, I don't speak French”. It's pretty hard to go to the end of the line when the airplane is departing. Who is going to show up to serve me in French? Who should I appeal to in the year 2001? Air Canada wasn't born yesterday. Excuse me for saying so, but Air Canada's services stink.
Last week, when we asked the same question here, in committee, we were told to wait until the following week. Well, the following week is here now. Who will be coming next week?
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.)): Air Canada.
Ms. Diana Monnet: I don't claim to be here to correct all the problems at Air Canada.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Certainly not, you're certainly not here to correct all the problems. You're here, I think and I hope, to give us some information and to tell us what must be done to solve the problem. Is there a procedure?
If I drive my car at 120 km/h in an area where the speed limit is 100 km/h, it won't do to sit around the table and hope that the problem will be solved. I will be arrested, I will be fined, and if I don't behave, my licence will be taken away and I will no longer be able to drive.
This is serious; we have a problem. Mr. Chairman, I thought that the problem was present between Vancouver and Prince George, but we have it between Ottawa and Montreal. I'm not inventing this. I'm so frustrated. I wrote down the entire incident in my BlackBerry. I want answers.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.
Ms. Diana Monnet: There's no doubt that the service should have been bilingual. As far as your complaint is concerned, I can only repeat what I said earlier: you have to complain to Air Canada, exactly as you did.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Air Canada has been in existence since—
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Allow the witness to answer.
Ms. Diana Monnet: If you want to know whether we have a magic wand that we can wave to change everything quickly, the answer is no. We don't have any instant solution.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you. That's all I had to say.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Thibeault, you have the floor.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
I heard my colleague's comments, as well as those by Claude Drouin, who said that, if we were to begin right away, perhaps in 20 years there would be bilingual services on board our air carriers or others, in passing. I've been waiting for 30 years. So at times I lose faith. Mr. Godin's example, between Ottawa and Vancouver last week... But, what do you expect? That's Air Canada for you.
In your presentation, Ms. Monnet—and Mr. Reid emphasized this earlier—you said that federal institutions must comply with Treasury Board directives when assessing demand. The demand is to be measured through professional, objective surveys.
At Treasury Board, do you believe that these surveys are actually professional? What bothers me, given what is in the newspapers, at least, is that a survey is done over a period of one week, but it does not seem to go much beyond that. It could just be that that week there are only anglophones, or, if it is an organized group, only francophones. Are you satisfied with the surveys provided to you by Air Canada?
Ms. Diana Monnet: Yes, we are satisfied. We are consulted throughout the survey process. Statistics Canada is also consulted. It is a professional firm, Angus Reid Group Inc., that carries out the surveys for Air Canada.
• 1620
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you. I have another short question. Unfortunately, I was not here last week. I hope that I am not going to repeat what others have said.
To your knowledge, are the bilingual services provided by the subsidiaries of Air Canada, Air Canada and Air Nova—let us take just Eastern Canada for the moment—found to be satisfactory or are there a lot of complaints?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: We believe that the services are indeed satisfactory. Since July of last year, the carrier has been doing everything it can to meet the demand where services are to be provided automatically.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: So you think that there has been some improvement. Is that right?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: Before that time, there was no obligation on those routes.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you very much.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. The joint chairs would like to ask questions, but we will continue our rotation and go to Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Your last comment brings me to another question. Before July 2000, the obligation to provide services in both official languages did not exist. In July 2000, the obligation existed.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): In the case of the subsidiaries.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, I understand. On June 30th at midnight, did the employees become bilingual or were they moved around?
Ms. Diana Monnet: Language training was given. As far as possible, Air Canada provided training for its employees. I think that there is good will. We are following the situation closely. Air Canada is taking steps to make its staff bilingual. If employees are not bilingual, they must at least be able to carry out their duties and professional responsibilities in both languages.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Is that what you think or what you know?
Ms. Diana Monnet: That is what we know. We have seen their plan. I do not have them at hand, but we have seen statistics on the number of employees who have had language training.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: How many employees passed that training?
Ms. Diana Monnet: That, I do not know.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right. I am now going to ask the question I had in mind when I raised my hand. We are talking about cases, and we could go on for some time.
There is an initial desire between you and the Commissioner of Official Languages to work together more closely. That seems perfectly logical and self-evident to me. That dialogue should have been going on since Confederation. But in practice, why has there not been, in airplanes... For starters, on the same tape, there is an obligation to say that on this or that airline, service is available in both official languages. It is clearly stated: the primary obligation of Treasury Board, which is responsible for the administration of the act, is to require Air Canada to do what the act requires it to do.
Second, the issue of complaints seems complicated. There could be a sheet of paper that says what constitutes a complaint on one side, and to whom a complaint should be sent on the other. That sheet could be placed on every seat, like the pictures of the plane. That way, all passengers travelling from Montreal to Ottawa by airplane would be aware of the provisions of the act. I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but even here, things seem unclear. First of all, as a concrete solution, people would be better informed. Second, a complaint form with an address would be made available to passengers. If the complaint had to do with Air Canada, it would be Air Canada's address. If it had to do with the Commissioner, it would be the Commissioner's address. If it had to do with the Prime Minister, it would be the Prime Minister's address. That would be made available to people.
That way, in my opinion, there would be a clear will, even more than with reports, action plans and meetings where we sit around the table and hope things will change. Those are two concrete steps. What do you think?
Ms. Diana Monnet: That is a good suggestion, and we will follow up on it.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Okay? Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.
Ms. Maheu, you have the floor.
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you.
Ms. Monnet, I listened carefully to what you had to say and to your colleagues' answers. We have a long way to go. I would even say we seem to be going in circles. It is even worse than that.
Last week, I asked Ms. Dufour what happened when there was an in-flight emergency, for example, when someone was ill. There is just the tapes, one single tape, that repeats what the flight attendant says.
• 1625
The only airports I use are supposed to be bilingual. I never
fly between two airports that are not supposedly bilingual, but I
travel a lot in Canada: Vancouver, Ottawa, Montreal and sometimes
Eastern Canada. Rarely is anyone on the airplane bilingual,
especially when you are flying on one of the subsidiary airlines.
The answer I was given last week was that if I were travelling in the United States or Germany, I would not get bilingual service. I do not care about the United States. It is not a country with two official languages. In Germany, flight attendants probably speak three languages, not just two. In Canada, we can hardly manage quality control.
We talk about the 5% rule. There are surveys, questions are asked. I have never been asked what my language preference is. I speak both languages, but never, neither in English nor French, has anyone ever asked me whether I was francophone or anglophone.
I question the 5% rule. I find it unfortunate that it is in the act or regulations, because I wonder who would be blamed if there was a lone anglophone on a flight in a francophone area or a lone francophone in an area where the language preference or the language of the majority was English, and someone died on the airplane because there was no help in his or her language or in his or her language of choice, or in one of the two official languages of Canada. Who would be to blame? Air Canada? Transport Canada? Treasury Board? Who?
Ms. Diana Monnet: Given that you always travel between two airports designated to provide bilingual service, you should have access to bilingual service. As for your question on health, it is to be hoped that if someone is seriously ill on board an airplane, the person who speaks his or her language best will come to his or her assistance.
If there is a shortcoming in this respect, something has to be done about it; it needs to be brought to Air Canada's attention. If you have never received a questionnaire, perhaps it is because you travel between places that are already designated as places where there are over a million passengers using the airport annually, in other words, places where service must automatically be provided in both languages. There is therefore no questionnaire to determine whether or not there is 5%. If only one person travels, service should be provided in both official languages. All I can say to you is that when the act was amended and the regulation setting the 5% rule was created, it was the Parliament of Canada that decided that it should be so. It was not up to me nor to my colleagues here.
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): You are responsible for everything else I have raised, and answers have been no more forthcoming.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): All right?
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Yes, all right. Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Drouin, briefly.
Mr. Claude Drouin: I just have a brief comment. Unfortunately, I missed part of what Mr. Sauvageau said because I had to take a telephone call. But in connection with the complaints system he was talking about, would it be possible to have four copies, one for you, one for Transport Canada, one for official languages and one for Air Canada or the company in question, with a fax number, so the complaint can be sent by fax for immediate registration and follow up. I think there should be four copies, and one copy should be sent to each party.
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): And a fifth copy for the committee.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Noted. I too would like to ask a few brief questions, if you don't mind. Under the Official Languages Act as it applies to Air Canada, is it conceivable that Air Canada could be required to produce an overall action plan on the application of the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: It might be, yes, definitely. We ask Air Canada to report on its activities at least once a year, and we comment on the reports Air Canada submits to us. However, we certainly could ask Air Canada to report in greater detail on certain aspects of its operations.
• 1630
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It is an action—not reaction—plan. Is the plan available to the public?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: Absolutely.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I have a second question. If I am not mistaken, the agreements providing for the delegation of the administration of certain airports are given final approval by Treasury Board. Is that correct? Am I wrong to think that?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: Do you mean when they become airport authorities?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes.
Mr. Gérald Groulx: The National Transportation Policy has been approved by Treasury Board and Cabinet.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): But when there is an individual agreement between the Government of Canada and a particular airport authority, is that agreement endorsed by Treasury Board?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: I am sorry, but I do not understand the question.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): There is an agreement between the government of Canada and the Ottawa Airport Authority. There are also agreements for the airports in Montreal and elsewhere in Canada. In each case, there is an agreement, a contract. Were those contracts subject to Treasury Board approval?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: Most likely. Transport Canada is surely responsible for that; as owner of or agent for the property, it would have property management agreements with the airport authorities.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Do we know whether those agreements contain provisions regarding language services the airports are required to provide?
Ms. Anne Boudreault: If I might answer, the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act contains language provisions that apply to airport authorities.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Has that act been checked against the Federal Court judgment about two months ago involving the Contraventions Act, where it was determined—and the government agreed not to appeal that judgment—that the government of Canada could not delegate its language responsibilities to third parties. Have the two been reconciled?
Ms. Anne Boudreault: I do not think so.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I have a couple of minutes left, if you will allow.
If there is a conflict between the requirements of the Official Languages Act or Air Canada's requirements under the Official Languages Act and agreements with unions, collective agreements, what takes precedence? If there is a conflict between Air Canada's capacity to implement the Official Languages Act, to fulfil its legal obligations, and its capacity to do so under those collective agreements, what takes precedence?
Ms. Diana Monnet: The Official Languages Act is quasi constitutional, and agreements with employees, collective agreements, must respect that.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So collective agreements cannot be used as an excuse for not living up to the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Diana Monnet: No, an institution cannot do that.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are you going to provide us with that? I am not asking you to name the airports. We will find that out when you table your report. Will the report be public? You are currently investigating five airports. Did you say that would soon be finished?
Ms. Diana Monnet: Yes.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): In a week, a month?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: The report will soon be completed. We have received comments on a first draft from the institutions that were investigated. So the final report should be available soon.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Will it be available before the House rises?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: Maybe. What is the date?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I wish I knew. Mid-June is the talk.
Ms. Monnet, I would like to come back to your presentation, and I quote the third paragraph on page 2:
I understand that. That is fine for Canada Post, Human Resources, Fisheries and Oceans and so on.
I agree with you 100% on that. What you are referring to is encouraging Canadians to travel in their own country. Providing passenger transportation is not a local service. On the contrary, by definition, it is the opposite. You said, “...travellers do not all live in the place where the facilities are found.”
• 1635
In the next paragraph, you went on to say that because of
that, there are “...two kinds of rules: one series based on demand
and the other applies automatically...” Insofar as the automatic
rule is concerned, I agree with my colleagues: perhaps it needs to
be applied better. As for the first rule, based on demand, it comes
back to the 5% rule. Right?
Ms. Diana Monnet: Yes.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So you contradicted yourself. On one hand, you said the 5% rule did not apply by definition, because we are dealing with travellers, but on the other hand, you use that criterion to decide whether or not certain services are provided.
Ms. Diana Monnet: Only where automatic obligations apply. If in the end there is a question, that is when we apply the 5% criterion.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Should you not instead take the entire population of Canada and determine, within that, if the percentage is there? If that were the case, I would tell you automatically yes, because 25% of the population is francophone.
Ms. Diana Monnet: That is another matter, and the regulations do not allow for that presently.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Regulations can be changed.
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Mr. Chairman, if I had a minute, I could perhaps clarify that.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes.
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: When we say that the 5% criterion is found in the regulations, you have to keep in mind that in addition to that 5% criterion, the demographic rules also provide thresholds with respect to the number of people living in an area.
That approach would be extremely difficult to apply—I think you will agree—to people boarding airplanes. That is in fact why the regulations for flights between the three provinces and cities like Montreal, Moncton and Ottawa are mainly based on the so-called automatic rules. I am unable to give you the exact figures, because they would have to be updated at any rate, but we believe that these rules alone probably cover over 80% of people who would likely wish to use French on airplanes. So over and above that, the 5% criterion becomes more of a residual measure for flights where it is not automatically self-evident that the demand could easily be greater than 5%.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will come back to that. I have one last question before turning it over to Mr. Sauvageau.
Can you give us a reference for your statement that Parliament approved 5%? I do not recall approving that. I am not saying that it is not so, but what is the reference: when and how?
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: It was approved indirectly, it is true, by the fact, for example, that even the committee, your predecessor committee, had enough time to go over the regulations, the proposed regulations, and did not, at the time, object to the package of rules we have just presented to you.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Here? At this committee?
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: The committee which preceded yours, your predecessor, Mr. Chair. Because, obviously...
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are you telling me that the issue was referred to the committee and that the committee took the decision not to raise any objections or quite simply did not raise any objections, which meant that the issue had not been referred to it? Which is it? There is a major distinction here.
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: No. I think that the committee did not really raise any objection to the old range of rules relating to passengers.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.
Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Could you give us a rough estimate of the extent to which the act is implemented in airports covered by the act—those airports with one million or more passengers a year or the other airports that you have mentioned. What is the percentage? Is it 10%, 50%, 80% or 100%? Could you give us an approximate figure? That's my first question.
My second question is as follows: Could you tell us about areas where there is 5% demand?
There are two categories. My first question deals with the first category: in areas where implementation of the act is required, is it in fact implemented? My second question deals with the second category: in airports where demand stands at 5%, is the act 5%, 50% or 99% implemented? Could you give us a rough idea of this?
• 1640
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: It is really impossible for us to give you this type of figure, because analyses of this type would have to consider the number of complaints, for example. That is a very difficult thing for us to do accurately.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine. Therefore, we have an act and we don't know whether it is implemented or whether it is not implemented. If the act has indeed not been implemented, we don't have a clear complaint process. Is that the situation we're facing?
Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: I can't really share your point of view, because it's clear that the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages plays a major role in enforcing the Official Languages Act. The fact that repeated blatant violations of the act may be taken before the Federal Court also makes it difficult for me to share your point of view.
Perhaps we do not have any way of having an overall idea of complaints as a whole.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator Gauthier.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am sorry that I arrived late. I was attending a ceremony for John Turner, with whom I worked for approximately 10 years.
Do you remember the debate about the issue of “where numbers warrant”? I remember it well. It was back in 1982 and 1983. The Constitution uses the term “where numbers warrant”.
I have never liked being part of a percentage. I believe that when I am given a right, it is just that, and that right should be available to me anywhere in Canada. The 5% rule deals with the language in which services are provided. In my opinion, the 5% is a compromise which was invented by goodness knows who. I was around when this debate was going on. The figure of 10% was being bandied around but I put forward the figure of 0%. Everybody is entitled to services in both official languages in a country which has two official languages. Do you understand what I am saying? That notion was laid out by a specific body, I don't know which. Yet today, I continue to believe that it is an inappropriate criterion, which is used as justification and as an excuse.
I could give you some personal examples of experiences that I have had with Air Canada, in particular, because I have never really used any other carrier. I was told that on the particular day when I was travelling that the bilingual employee was ill, or that services were not available in French at that particular time because the people in question had failed to show up or because they were doing something else.
Earlier, I asked Ms. Monnet if you were using a stick policy. If you withdrew the 5% rule, I would be very happy. Perhaps others among us mentioned this same idea a few moments ago, before I arrived at the meeting. In terms of accountability, if I may refer to it as such—you know what I mean when I say accountability—how can Treasury Board tell me that it has a positive influence on the issue of official languages when it has practically no authority, aside from saying that it will report such and such an issue to Parliament, which will look at the matter?
I have some problem with the current process. I have a great deal of respect for you, at Treasury Board, because you have major problems to deal with, but in terms of services... In terms of fair representation, things can be quantified, somewhat. There are 25% francophones and 75% non-francophones, but in terms of services, an English or French-speaking Canadian, in my opinion, should be able to access services in both official languages throughout the country.
Ms. Diana Monnet: You have raised a very important issue. I think that the problem stems from the service itself and not from the 5% rule. Even if this was brought down to 0%, I think that we would still be sitting today looking at problems in terms of service delivery. As Joseph has already said, the 5% rule covers more than 94% of minority communities, but things are still far from perfect.
• 1645
However, I do agree with you when you say that it should be
0%. I will look at that.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That could potentially be a recommendation made by this committee. Who knows?
Mr. Yvon Godin: We cannot even get French language services between Ottawa and Montreal.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will see. Senator, do you have any other questions?
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Godin.
Mr. Yvon Godin: In my case, as I have already said, when I come to Ottawa and a particular person does not speak French, is it acceptable, under the act, that she should tell me that she does not speak French and that I should move to another line where I can speak to a francophone? She did not put it exactly like that, but to all intents and purposes, that is what she meant, if I wanted to have service in French. I can tell you that francophone staff at airport counters are few and far between.
Ms. Diana Monnet: She should have been capable of answering you in French. Failing that, another option, which registers way down on the preference scale would have been as follows: even if for exceptional reasons a unilingual person had been assigned to a flight, she should have immediately found someone to provide you with service in your own language.
Mr. Yvon Godin: How can you do that on board of a Dash 8? There is only one flight attendant on board. That is, unless the pilot came to me—
Ms. Diana Monnet: Yes.
Mr. Yvon Godin: If that were the case, we would not be listening to a cassette, but the pilot.
Ms. Diana Monnet: No, point taken.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Comprehensive service.
Ms. Diana Monnet: Yes, and the act...
Mr. Yvon Godin: Seriously though, the act was breached in Ottawa. On the plane between Ottawa and Montreal, the Official Languages Act was also breached.
Ms. Diana Monnet: Yes.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Fine. That is all I have to say.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): There are other instances of this, which I talked about last week. A member of Parliament from the National Capital Region, who is the Liberal Whip, took a flight between Vancouver and Ottawa and there was no service or announcement available in French on that particular flight. Last summer, after the act came into force, I took the plane to Fredericton, and no announcement was made in French at the airport.
This situation starts to become a problem eventually. I think that Treasury Board should make every effort to implement at least existing legislation. You will see that almost everyone around this table is resolved to strengthen legislation, but also to go much further, perhaps along the lines of what Senator Gauthier was suggesting. The 5% rule complicates the issue needlessly. If we got rid of this rule, perhaps there would be a turnaround in the situation. If you pardon the expression.
Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I know that Senator Gauthier underscored what I am about to say at the beginning of the meeting. Is there any way of knowing how many Air Canada employees are bilingual, how many are unilingual francophones and how many are unilingual anglophones? It seems to me that if 80% of Air Canada employees say they are unilingual, even with all the will in the world on your part, we're never going to have a bilingual service.
Ms. Diana Monnet: As a matter of fact, we do have statistics on that.
Mr. Gérald Groulx: In the report that Air Canada provided us in December 1999, 13,597 employees identified English as their first official language, 4,331 identified French as their first official language and, as Mr. Gauthier pointed out earlier, 4,589 identified neither official language as the language in which they were generally able to best express themselves.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But that doesn't mean anything.
Mr. Gérald Groulx: Doesn't it?
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, because a particular person might be an anglophone and bilingual at the same time. That does happen. There aren't plenty, but there are some. Another person might be francophone and bilingual at the same time also.
Mr. Gérald Groulx: Point taken.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: To come back to my question then, how many are unilingual anglophones, how many are bilingual and how many are unilingual francophones? I think that debate is a very healthy thing, but we have to have concrete facts, and reach concrete solutions. In order to work out concrete solutions we need basic information. If we don't even know how many anglophones there are at Air Canada, who don't speak French, we won't be able to change things. Do you get my drift?
It's a bit like research. When you are researching, you start by clearing the wheat from the chaff. It seems to me that we're now trying to reach a conclusion, when we can't even see the forest for the trees. Consequently, the question that I am asking you is the following: who should we speak to, to Ms. Adam, or Statistics Canada? Who should know the percentages that I was asking about concerning Air Canada?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: It's up to Air Canada to make sure that services are provided in a passenger's own language.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That is not what I am asking you.
• 1650
Mr. Gérald Groulx: I understand. We do not have...
Ms. Diana Monnet: The question that we should really be asking is the following: how many staff, who are identified as being bilingual, where services are required in both official languages, meet or do not meet the requirements of their position?
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Who should ask that question?
Ms. Diana Monnet: They should, first of all, but we could also ask that question to get a reply.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's great.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: They will tell you that 37.7% of staff are not identified with either official language.
Ms. Diana Monnet: Yes, but if they are in bilingual positions...
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Would you send the clerks the reports on the implementation of official language programs that you are sent by federal institutions? You do get all these reports. Could we have a look at them?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: The bodies in question send a copy to all the clerks. When we ask these bodies to complete the annual performance report, we include instructions with our request in which we ask these bodies to send a copy of their reports to the joint clerks of the committees and to the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Ms. Diana Monnet: Having said that, if you have not received your copy, we could always send you one.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Clerk, could you tell us a bit more about this?
The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Tonu Onu): Yes, indeed, what our witnesses have said is quite correct, indeed, a copy of the report on official languages from every federal body is sent to both joint clerks of the committee.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are we talking about agencies or departments which by order of Cabinet, are required to submit an action plan in terms of section 41? Is that what we're referring to here?
Mr. Gérald Groulx: No, no, not at all.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Section 48 of the act clearly states the following:
That already exists in the Official Languages Act. I have been here for 30 years now, and I have never been able to get my hands on these reports.
Ms. Diana Monnet: We will talk to the clerks and if you don't have these reports, we will send you them.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I know that, for three or four years now, Treasury Board has been publishing annual reports on this issue. I don't know if that's what we're referring to here.
Ms. Diana Monnet: No, the report is tabled in the House. The annual report was tabled...
Ms. Charlotte Cloutier (Director, Programs and Liaison, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat): The last annual Treasury Board report was tabled in March and the annual reports by each institution are traditionally sent out around June 30, to the joint clerk of the House of Commons and the joint clerk of the Senate.
Ms. Diana Monnet: These reports are used as a basis for the drafting of the annual report for the Chair, which is tabled in the House.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, are there any other questions?
I would like to thank you, on behalf of the members of this committee, for having made the effort, given your specific circumstances, to speak to us here today. I think that you may have felt some frustration from members around the table today in terms of the dance that we are taking part in. We will continue...
Colleagues, I would like to remind you that the committee will not meet tomorrow. Next week, we are to meet the Commissioner of Official Languages to consider the estimates. You will be receiving, either today or tomorrow, the relevant documents.
Also next week, we will be meeting, if I am not mistaken, representatives from Air Canada, but not the director of Air Canada. Then, we have the recess week, and then, the week following that, we will be meeting the Association des gens de l'air du Québec, the Ottawa Tourism and Convention Authority, and we will attempt to get Alliance Québec and ACFO, according to what the committee decides. For the time being, that's what the program looks like.
Senator.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who will be representing Air Canada?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): As it stands...
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Is it Mr. Port, the vice-president?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, Mr. Port won't be coming.
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to meet someone with some clout.
• 1655
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): As it stands now, the representatives of Air Canada will be the Vice-President, Steve Markey, and one other person. We have made it clear to Air Canada that we would like to meet Mr. Milton. We talked about that issue, last week. As we understand, he has, how shall I put it, his hands full right now, and we will expect not to be able to hear from him until later in the month. We'll see when the time comes. That's how things currently stand.
On that note, I would like to thank you all for coming and wish you all a nice afternoon.
This meeting is adjourned.
