LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 30, 2001

• 1530

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.

We have quorum. Therefore, the witnesses may begin their presentation. We can now get this meeting underway.

The committee is continuing its study of bilingual services provided by Air Canada. It was on the suggestion of Mr. Sauvageau that the Gens de l'air have been invited to speak to us today.

I would like to mention that it is more than likely that we will not be in a position to put out a definitive report before the end of the session. However, we will be tabling an interim report to the committee next week.

Mr. Sauvageau, you have the floor.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Martel and Mr. Alain, before you begin, I would just like to point out to you that I find it completely unacceptable that there are no Liberal members here today.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau, I'm sorry, but you are out of order. I am going to give the floor to the witnesses. There are at least three members from the party you referred to here. Therefore, with all due respect, you are out of order.

Mr. Martel, over to you.

Mr. Serge Martel (President, Association des Gens de l'air du Québec): Madam Chair, Mr. Chairman, committee members, it is with great pleasure, but also with mixed feelings of bitterness and hope, that the Association des Gens de l'air du Québec is here today before the Joint Committee on Official Languages. This is the first time we have done so since the new act was passed in 1988.

Our bitterness is the result of the constant and systemic erosion of the place of Francophones in the air transport industry in Canada. Among other things, Bill C-26 and the Transport Minister's rejection of our Association's proposed amendments to that legislation merely legalize the sustained marginalization of Francophones in Canadian airspace.

However, it is with a certain hope for better days ahead that we are here before you today, because your mandate is to monitor the implementation of the Official Languages Act, particularly since our demands are based on an undeniable fact: our unrelenting struggle and this language legislation are closely linked to each other.

We hardly need recall that the Act, which was passed in 1969, guarantees and legalizes the use of both official languages, English and French. It also guarantees a fair access for French- and English-speaking Canadians to positions in the federal public service and corporations subject to it by the Parliament of Canada. Our struggle is thus legitimate and justified, since it is based on a solid legal and constitutional foundation.

First, we will clarify certain inaccuracies observed in the testimony given before this committee and in other forums and raise some questions about the application of Part V of the Act.

Second, we will express our concerns about the potential consequences of the omission of certain provisions of Bill C-26 as amended.

Lastly, we will offer our comments on ideas previously advanced by members of this committee, adding of course our own thoughts.

Air Canada claims it is a victim of false and incomplete information published by the media since the start of the year, a fact that involves us directly. We therefore feel obliged to set the record straight and to cross some t's and dot a few i's.

On June 10, 2000, in response to a question from the Chair of the Senate Transport and Communications Committee, the Honourable Senator Bacon, on the percentage of Francophone pilots at the Corporation, Air Canada President Robert Milton answered:

Until last year, we needed to draw all our pilots from our wholly- owned regional carriers. That composition may not have afforded the ability to expand at a rate identical to the relative proportion of Francophones in the country.

• 1535

This statement led us to conduct our own minor investigation, which enabled us to see that the actual situation was quite different. In 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999, pilots from outside the regional carriers were hired by Air Canada. This black and white evidence is available to committee members. Are we to believe that Mr. Milton was misinformed?

On March 5, 2000—this is not ancient history either—E.J. D'Arcy, Air Canada's Vice-President for In-Flight Service, wrote in La Presse:

Over the past three decades, Air Canada has integrated into its operations and its product the programs and measures enabling it to comply with the spirit and letter of the Official Languages Act. We have never considered reducing our commitments under that Act.

He later goes on to say the following: "... any statement to the contrary is based on ignorance of the facts."

Unfortunately, a reading of Air Canada's language policy published in 1984, just before privatization, and the 1999 version, reveal significant qualifications of Air Canada's official language commitments. We will limit ourselves to two examples.

First, the "Language of Service - Travelling Public" section of the 1984 policy provided as follows:

In all institutions and on all flights, the various services that Air Canada provides to travellers, including, if possible, those provided by a third party, shall be offered in both languages and provided in that chosen by the client.

In the new policy adopted after Parliament passed the regulations quantifying significant demand for service at 5%, the Corporation hastened to include this standard and to eliminate services previously provided through third parties.

Second, in the "Language Training" section, the Corporation hastily removed from the original version of 1984, the obligation of subsidiaries and majority-held associate companies to train employees holding recognized positions requiring knowledge of both official languages.

On this last point, we would recall the committee's insistence with Air Canada representatives when they appeared on December 1, 1994. Having seen no improvement, the Commissioner had to rely on the courts to clarify what, in our view, was a rather twisted interpretation on Air Canada's part of section 25 of the Act.

Quite recently, on May 15, 2001, Air Canada's Director of Employment Equity testified before your committee that the Corporation had no problem of Francophone under-representation either in general or among its pilots.

Without questioning her word, we find this statement confusing. A glance at Appendix 3 shows that, in 1995, Air Canada forwarded to Treasury Board data which contained no unknown factors regarding the membership of its employees in one of the two language groups. It is strange to see that, the following year, a total of 8,261 of them could not say specifically to which linguistic group they belonged. It should be noted that the complaint filed by the Association in January 2001 was based on the information published on this subject by Treasury Board.

Thus, on the basis of the same statistical sources, it appears that the linguistic breakdown at Air Canada in 2000 was as follows: 16% Francophones, 45% Anglophones and 37% Allophones.

One definitely does not need a Ph.D. to understand Treasury Board's definition of the terms "Francophone" and "Anglophone", which is as follows:

For the purposes of the policy, a 'Francophone' is a person who reports French as the first official language, regardless of ethnic origin or mother tongue [...]. The 'first official language' is the language the employee indicates as being the one with which he or she identifies most (that is to say the official language in which the person is generally most proficient).

• 1540

In the same line of thinking, the witness stated, in reference to flight personnel:

We can only manage by hiring bilingual employees. I have been involved in this issue for 12 years, and, for 12 years, we have hired only bilingual employees. We do not hire unilinguals.

Curiously, the seniority list of flight attendants hired since 1990 shows that between 1990 and 1999, 67 unilingual flight attendants were hired., and that from 1990 to 2000, 85 were hired. Are we to believe, once again, that the Director of Employment Equity and Linguistic Affairs at Air Canada was also misinformed? Do you want evidence? It is also available.

As for pilots, we very strongly suggest that Air Canada's representatives consult the minutes of the meeting of the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications of June 12, 2000, in which her President stated that this group of employees represented 12.5% of total personnel.

Having, we believe, set some of the record straight, we would now like to consider Air Canada's application of Part V of the Official Languages Act concerning the language of work.

Did you know that, two years later, the flight attendants' collective agreement is still not available in French?

Did you know that, in case of conflict between the English and French versions, when the latter becomes available, the English version will be considered as authoritative?

Did you know that the Air Operations Manual used by the pilots is still not available in French, whereas the previous version, number 550, became available in the wake of the turbulence of 1975 and 1976? I think that some of you will remember that period.

In short, it has taken us only 30 seconds to cite the grounds for three potential complaints.

Even though we are talking about air transport, you should not mistake us for baggage.

It is not for frivolous reasons that our Association appeared a year ago before the Standing Committee on Transport and before the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. The purpose of our efforts at the time was essential to put an end to the unfair treatment of Francophones wishing to work in the air transport industry in Canada. Our well-documented presentation compared the percentage of Francophone pilots at Canadian International, which was not subject to the provisions of the Official Languages Act, and the percentage that Air Canada, which was showing little zeal in discharging its obligations.

In view of this damning observation, and on the basis of the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous support and Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache's comments, which were as follows:

"Language rights must necessarily be the object of legal guarantees. Those guarantees exist solely to the extent that they are recognized in law on the basis of a constitutional or legislative instrument, a resolution or a well-established custom.

we therefore tabled a series of amendments designed to better protect the language rights of the Canadian Francophone minority.

However, with a wave of his hand, the Minister of Transport rejected our legitimate proposal, stating categorically:

In short, the Canadian government's position with respect to these amendments is that they are not necessary or that they represent an unreasonable extension of the principles contained in the Official Languages Act.

Fortunately, this view is not universally shared and confirms the validity of our approach.

We would now like to make an advance announcement of the findings of a recent preliminary report by the Commissioner of Official Languages on a complaint filed by our Association in January 2000 on the percentage of Francophone pilots at Air Canada. The highlights of that document are as follows:

First, with regard to its pilots, Air Canada is not complying with the undertaking established in Part IV of the Official Languages Act with respect to the participation of French- and English-speaking Canadians.

Second, the Corporation's policy of conducting interviews in English for all pilot candidates reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of language rights, to say nothing of the negative message it sends to the country's Francophone pilots, regardless of their mastery of English.

Third, the use of a linguistic assistance for certain parts of the training program for pilot candidates may be explained by a narrow interpretation of the Corporation's undertaking to provide technical training in both languages.

• 1545

Fourth, during the investigation, Air Canada claimed that its doors are open to all qualified pilot candidates. The doors may be open, but the Corporation is much less receptive to Francophone pilot than to their Anglophone counterparts.

Fifth, the fact that the aviation industry is such that Francophone pilots must be bilingual does not relieve Air Canada of its linguistic obligations and responsibilities toward French- speaking candidates in the recruitment and hiring process.

Lastly, the Commissioner supports Air Canada's position that the Corporation's performance should be evaluated on the basis of the percentage of Francophones in its actual recruitment pool. However, she says she is particularly concerned by the fact that Air Canada seems to have trouble acknowledging that its equitable participation responsibilities go beyond a statistical analysis.

During the 1980s, representatives of Air Canada, which was a Crown corporation at the time, appeared before this committee three times. Indeed, some of you were on this committee at that time, including Mr. Rivest. Successive Air Canada presidents Taylor and Jeanniot made commitments to your predecessors on this committee. These commitments can be found in the minutes of the committee meetings. Eighteen of them are listed in Appendix 4. However, this is not a comprehensive list. You will find that even today, Air Canada is far from complying with all its commitments.

The document that is included in Appendix 5, entitled: La clairvoyance du sénateur Joyal includes what the Senator said at the time and should, in our opinion, serve as a source of inspiration for this committee in giving the Official Languages Act more teeth and making it more watertight. Therefore, we would like to see a more proactive approach from this committee.

We believe in the continuity of Canadian institutions and that certain basic principles, such as bilingualism, must be maintained and if necessary, improved, even if, as is the case with Air Canada, there is a change of status along the road.

We are aware that the next few years will be particularly rough for the new Air Canada Corporation, but we also believe that if the Corporation's spokespersons had been required to appear before your committee once a year for the past 31 years, they would have dredged up the same old line. They would have said that they had made progress. However, the Corporation has not come up to speed in terms of complying with the spirit and the letter of the Official Languages Act.

We wholeheartedly support the ideas put forward by the members of this committee on the basis of prior testimony. For example, we support the suggestion that complaint forms addressed solely to the Official Languages Commissioner in an attempt to ensure the confidentiality of complainants and to identify the more problematic routes, be placed in seat pockets aboard Air Canada and Air Canada subsidiary aircraft. We also applaud the move to clearly post the linguistic duties of the Air Canada Corporation and its subsidiaries in airports. We support also the move to potentially force other interprovincial and international carriers holding Transport Canada licences to comply with specific provisions of the Official Languages Act.

We would just like to add a few recommendations of our own.

First, we recommend that the wording of section 10 of the Air Canada Public Participation Act be changed in the following way: "Air Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act as if it were a federal institution." This is not a precedent. When NAV Canada was privatized, lawmakers added in this provision.

Secondly, we recommend that, in its report, the committee urge the Governor in Council to take the necessary regulatory steps to enforce part VI of clause 40 of the act, which relates to the under-representation of francophones at Air Canada.

• 1550

Finally, we recommend that the committee carefully examine the amendments to bill C-26 that were put forward last year by our association, as well as bring these to the attention of the political and social affairs section at Transport Canada, so that our association will no longer have to come before you to discuss the same problem—maybe other problems, but not this one.

You might be wondering why we are here today. This process began three years ago, following a question that was asked. Unfortunately, the one who asked the question—you see the little hand there—cannot be here today because he is too young. We are here on their behalf. Thank you. I will await your questions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Martel. With respect to appendix 5, we, members of the committee, have not yet received it. We did receive all of the documents on Monday, and appendix 5 is still being translated. It will probably be ready tomorrow at which time the appendix will be distributed to all committee members. I am just pointing that out so you will not be looking for it.

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark-Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Martel. I would like to extend special thanks to Mr. Sauvageau, for asking the committee to study this subject.

I will begin by saying that I believe that the linguistic rights that are the most important, the ones that are the least recognized in Canada, are the rights of those who can only speak one of the two official languages, that is to say, the unilingual francophones and unilingual anglophones. The last census, in 1996, revealed that almost 70 percent of francophones in Quebec were unilingual and about 85 percent of anglophones outside Quebec were also unilingual.

There is no respect for the rights of those who speak only one of the two languages. There is more respect in Canada for the rights of those who are bilingual. For example, in 1974, in the Quebec public service, 34,000 positions were open to unilingual francophones, those who could speak only French, but 18 years later, only 25,000 positions were designated unilingual, while the remainder were designated bilingual.

I see the figures that indicate the percentage of francophone, anglophone and allophone employees at Air Canada, but there is no figure to indicate the percentage of people who were unilingual francophone when they were hired. Do you have that number?

Mr. Serge Martel: We do not have the ratio. We have to understand one another. Earlier, when we spoke of unilingual employees with Air Canada, it was in response to a statement that had been made here by Air Canada representatives. With the statistics and the lists that we have here, we would be able to determine the number of bilingual employees working as flight attendants.

• 1555

The situation is different for pilots, because a francophone must be bilingual whereas an anglophone need not speak both languages. We can, as you know, use the language of aviation. Throughout the world, we can speak English, but we are also entitled to speak the language of the country over which we are flying.

I can tell you that the percentage of bilingual employees is not 100%, because we have the figures to prove it. But there is something else. I am pleased that you raised the question on the definition of "bilingual employee" as it is understood by representatives of Air Canada when they state that 95% of their staff is bilingual. If we ask the members and senators of the Official Languages Committee what they mean by bilingualism, they will answer that it means a person has mastered both French and English. If we examine the list, we quickly realize that is not the case. For Air Canada, bilingualism might meant the mastery of English and Korean or English and Chinese. I have nothing against those languages, but we have to take that into account when examining the statistics provided by Air Canada.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Messrs. Martel and Alain.

I have a problem, and it is not that difficult to understand: I no longer know who to believe. Air Canada tells us one thing, Treasury Board says another thing, and the Official Languages Commissioner tells us that they are mistaken. You state that statistics prove that you were not treated fairly when pilots were hired.

Last January, I wrote to Mr. Milton regarding the problems you had told me about during a meeting last year. Mr. Douglas Port responded. Do you know him?

Mr. Serge Martel: I have heard of him.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: He is First Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Government Relations. I will quote from his letter. I can give you a copy; I have copies for you.

In the case of the two complaints that you have raised...

He is referring to me.

...flight Captain Giguère, General Vice-President—Operations, has just sent Air Canada's response to the Commissioner of Official Languages; it relates to allegations made by Gens de l'Air. I can give you my assurance that this complaint of discrimination against francophone pilots is unfounded. Our pilots are chosen according to well-determined technical criteria, and they are the same for all candidates. The board comprises both anglophone and francophone pilots and the positions are allocated according to the candidate's qualifications. If both candidates are equally competent, then a francophone pilot will be seen as having one extra asset.

Then he states that he will be sending a copy of the letter to Mr. Giguère.

He also wrote the following:

... our database indicates that 23.8% of employees who answered this question stated that they belonged to the francophone linguistic group.

The statistics that I have seen at previous meetings showed that 37% of Air Canada employees had not stated their primary language.

I would like you to respond to Mr. Port's allegations, but please be brief, because I only have seven minutes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You only have four left.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who is right? You or Mr. Port? Obviously, you will tell me that you are right.

Mr. Serge Martel: We are right, particularly since the Official Languages Commissioner said so in her report, as it relates to pilots; this report, incidentally, is available. It is a preliminary report, nevertheless, it is available.

• 1600

We received the report on Friday. The text was ready earlier, but some corrections had to be made. I have here some quotes from the Commissioner with respect to the hiring of pilots by Air Canada. This is what it says:

With regard to hiring restrictions, we learned that between 1995 and 1998, due to provisions in the collective agreement with the pilots' union, Air Canada could only hire pilots already employed by the Corporation's connector airlines (notably Air Nova, Air Ontario, Air BC and Air Alliance). Since 1998, following changes in the collective agreement, Air Canada can hire from other sources up to a rate of 60%.

In the Senate, Mr. Milton said that up until last year, that is, until 1999, he could not hire from regional carriers. Here, the response given to the Commissioner is the one that I have just read. So, Honourable Senator, that is your answer.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You will understand, Mr. Martel, that the Commissioner's report has not yet been made public, at least to my knowledge. I had not seen it myself. We do not have it, unless the chairman has seen it but the clerk has not distributed it. Officially, it does not exist.

Please do not interrupt me, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, I won't use up any of your time, Honourable Senator.

If you do have a copy of this preliminary report, I would imagine that since you are directly involved, you are free to distribute it. It would be nice if you could provide the clerk with a copy so that he might distribute it to all committee members.

Mr. Serge Martel: The clerk already has a French as well as an English copy of the report.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The Commissioner of Official Languages' preliminary report?

Mr. Serge Martel: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Let us try to understand this. If you, as a stakeholder, are prepared to distribute it, we will have to check with the Official Languages Commissioner and, if possible, it will be made available to everyone. Is that okay?

Mr. Serge Martel: That's fine. Mr. Chairman, would you allow...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No. I have a question to ask you and I am not doing this on the Senator's time. You have provided the Senator with some documents.

Mr. Serge Martel: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Usually, at committee, all members receive all of the documents. If you are not prepared to distribute this to all committee members...

Mr. Serge Martel: We are prepared to make it available to all members of the committee, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Then will you please do so.

Mr. Serge Martel: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier, if you would like to continue, you have three minutes remaining.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I did not open the envelope. If you would like to have it, I have not even opened it. I did not have the time.

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): I am a witness to that fact, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: If you are going to read it, at least give me a copy.

A Voice: We need copies for everyone.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: It isn't polite to open someone else's mail. Mr. Martel...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You have two and one half minutes remaining.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You have made some interesting comments in your statement today. Some time ago, I asked the lady who represented Treasury Board and her counsel, Mr. Pigeon, I believe, if Air Canada was an institution. Mr. Pigeon answered no, it is not a federal institution. I found that strange because I thought that Bill C-26, at clause 10, clearly stated that Air Canada was a federal institution. On page 16 of your comments, you recommend:

Air Canada is governed by the Official Languages Act as if it were a federal institution.

What do you mean by "as if it were"? Is it or is it not?

Mr. Serge Martel: That is the question. When Air Canada was privatized, in 1988, clause 10 of the act that privatized Air Canada stated that the Official Languages Act applied to Air Canada, but nothing more. However, as I said, NAV Canada was recently privatized and when this privatization took place, the Official Languages Act was said to apply as if it was a federal institution. Therefore, this allows for legal challenges and the institution no longer has a loophole when tough problems arise with the Commissioner of Official Languages. This would clarify Air Canada's obligations somewhat, without creating a precedent.

• 1605

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would invite you to read the Official Languages Act. The term "federal institution" is clearly defined on page 12.

I have another question. The act states that all Canadian air carriers must give in-flight safety instructions in both official languages. Is that true, or not?

It is not a trap. I am a politician. I do not ask a question if I don't already know the answer. The answer is yes. The Act is clear.

Mr. Serge Martel: Pilots say no when they do not know the answer.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Can you send me a list of these people so that I can write to them and enclose the relevant part of the Act? It is clear. I don't think we can argue the point. Now, we have to determine whether the language of service, the language of work, and fair representation, the three cornerstones of the Official Languages Act, are being respected. That is the question that I want to ask you.

With respect to fair representation, you tell me that 12% or 13% of the pilots are francophones.

Mr. Serge Martel: At Air Canada?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: At Air Canada.

Mr. Serge Martel: According to our calculations, it would be 15.5%, and the president said that it was 12.5%, so it is somewhere between 12.5% and 15.8%. The truth lies between those two figures.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: This is my final question. Treasury Board has given the committee and the Official Languages Commissioner the figures that were provided by Air Canada. I believe it is incumbent upon Treasury Board to check the statistics that are submitted by Air Canada. The Official Languages Commissioner gets her information from Treasury Board.

When Mr. Milton or Mr. Port or someone else sends statistics to us through Treasury Board and these statistics are not exactly accurate, then members and senators become frustrated.

Treasury Board distributes these statistics and tells us that it is not their fault because the figures come from Air Canada. I tell you that Treasury Board is responsible for saying to Air Canada: enough is enough; 37% "language unknown" is not right; this is no way to record statistics.

You tell me today that it may be 15.5% for pilots. I no longer know. I thought it was 12%. I am told that 14% of Air Canada employees are francophones.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier, I must interrupt you. You have had more than your share of time.

Mr. Martel, would you care to respond?

Mr. Serge Martel: I will answer the question. With respect to the reliability of the data, Mr. Chairman, we can refer to page 6 of the Commissioner's report, where it states:

The situation is further complicated by apparent contradictions between data obtained during the investigation and data contained in the Corporation's annual official languages review. The 1998-99 review reported that 15.4% of the pilots hired during that period were French-speaking, whereas, according to the information obtained from Air Canada as part of the investigation, the figures for 1998 and 1999 were 7.4% and 10.4% respectively. The Corporation's 1997 official languages review stated that 11.4% of the pilots hired that year were Francophone. The 1997 figure provided by Air Canada in the context of the investigation was 14.3%.

We can see that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Should we ask Treasury Board Secretariat to undertake an investigation in order to give us reliable data upon which to make our comments?

• 1610

With respect to the fairness ratio, our complaint was based on what was reported by Treasury Board, and now, in reading the minutes of Air Canada's presentation, we see that it is difficult to understand what is meant by "linguistic group". That has to be clarified.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you for being here, Mr. Martel and Mr. Alain, and thank you for your high-quality presentation.

On page 7 of your text, you quoted Ms. Michèle Perreault- Ieraci, who said that there were no problems at Air Canada. You said, very diplomatically: "Without questioning her word, we find this statement confusing." I would like to see whether you are confused about something else she said:

Air Canada has always assigned bilingual flight attendants to all its flights, 5% or not. Our goal has always been to continue to guarantee this bilingual presence...

As a pilot, do find this comment confusing?

Mr. Serge Martel: You must remember that I am not a pilot with Air Canada. I am pilot with an affiliate, which was initially called Air Alliance. I can assure you that bilingual service was provided on all Air Alliance flights, even if the company was not required to do so, according to Air Canada. Our view is that the company was required to do so under section 25.

If there continue to be complaints on Air Canada flights, this is because of a shortage of bilingual flight attendants somewhere, is it not? There would not be any complaints if there were bilingual flight attendants. So, once there are no more complaints... The responsibility of affiliate carriers is also very important in this regard.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You demonstrated very clearly that Ms. Michèle Perreault-Ieraci was at the very least misinformed, to use your expression, at several points in her testimony.

You have also demonstrated very clearly, in Appendix 3, that the figures reported by Air Canada since at least 1990 did not really meet Treasury Board's and the federal government's standards, because of the very high percentage of "unknowns", as much as 42%. How can we rely on Air Canada's statements or reports when it provides such figures?

Mr. Serge Martel: We are talking about something recent here. In the case of Mr. Milton, it was not even one year ago. In the case of the Air Canada representative, the comment was made two weeks ago. The vice-president's article was written about one month ago. The members of this committee will change, but this is a standing committee, and there is, therefore, continuity. So perhaps it might be possible to look back a little further. Perhaps you could look back to 1981, 1985 and 1987.

Air Canada has become a private company, but it is still subject to the Official Languages Act, and I think it would be a good idea to review what has been said here, before this committee, and that this be analyzed, so that people stop saying... I will quote one of the committee members who was here in 1981, I believe, exactly 20 years ago. Mr. Kilgour said that the act has been in place for 12 years, and that people were still saying that progress was being made. He said that if, in 20 years, he had become an honourable senator, he would not want to have to repeat the same thing. All the committee members have changed now, but nevertheless the same things are being said.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So you are saying that the committee has the power to ensure that, if we adopt your recommendations or other recommendations, we will not find ourselves again with a series of commitments that have not been met, such as those mentioned in Appendix 4. We would have all the power we require if the political will existed in the House to implement these recommendations and to hound Air Canada to comply with the Official Languages Act, if we give it more teeth or make it a little more binding.

• 1615

Mr. Serge Martel: In fact, you are saying what Senator Asselin said in 1981, following a comment by Senator Joyal. We need to put some teeth into the Act, not for those who comply with it, but rather for those who do not, because, after all, this is a quasi- constitutional piece of legislation.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You support some of the committee's recommendations, including the idea of putting forms in the pockets of Air Canada planes so that people can submit complaints to the Commissioner of Official Languages. I think Mr. Drouin made this suggestion. Since everyone was passing the buck to someone else—the Commissioner of Official Languages, Air Canada, and so on—we recommended, without analyzing the situation, that this be a four-copy form. You say that a form of this type should be sent to the Commissioner of Official Languages only. Could you please explain why you suggest this?

Mr. Serge Martel: The complainant's confidentiality must be respected. That is very important. All organizations receive complaints. According to an article published in 1990, only 3% of people who are dissatisfied actually complain. Clearly, an employee who feels that his rights regarding language at work have not been respected will not make a complaint. Such employees are rather afraid to complain.

Of course, for a year now, les Gens de l'air have been very involved in issues regarding the Official Languages Act. Some Air Canada employees call us to tell us about their complaints, and they do not even dare to speak about them to their union. They call us, and they want us to submit the complaint for them. It would therefore be a good idea not to show the complainant's name on these forms. This information should not go to the company. The complainant could also be an employee. In addition, business people who sometimes hesitate to make complaints, because this could be seen as unacceptable, would be able to do so. Such a procedure would enable the commissioner to deal with complaints and target places where there are problems.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Air Canada had a major advertising campaign in which it said services would improve in 180 days. The current campaign is about confidence in its pilots. It is spending a lot of money on these campaigns. If Air Canada were to adopt the committee's recommendation and put complaint forms on its planes, would you suggest that we also recommend that Air Canada undertake an ad campaign to announce that it will be trying harder to comply with the Official Languages Act? The campaign would also describe something new on Air Canada: complaint forms that people should feel free to use. Do you think that should be done on the quiet, or should the committee suggest that Air Canada launch an advertising campaign?

Mr. Serge Martel: Mr. Sauvageau, I think a parallel can be drawn between the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Complaints Commissioner. As you know, Mr. Bruce Hood was appointed Complaints Commissioner as part of the restructuring of the company. He mentioned that very few people knew that Air Canada had a complaints commissioner. There was not enough publicity about this. I think it is much the same as regards official languages. People wondered how to go about making a complaint. It is quite easy, you take a piece of paper, you write a letter about the situation that displeased you, and you send it to the Commissioner of Official Languages. There is no need to send a copy to Tom, Dick, and Harry. The complaint is sent to the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the staff there gets in touch with the complainant. So the complaint involves only the complainant and the Commissioner of Official Languages.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Bélanger and Ms. Maheu.

You gave us a great many figures this afternoon about the hiring of francophones, Mr. Martel and Mr. Alain. I would like to examine this situation with you. Why would Air Canada not wish to hire francophones in order to better serve its customers? Private companies always try to improve their service to customers to make sure they are satisfied and to keep them as customers.

• 1620

Has les Gens de l'air tried to find a constant, something that would indicate that Air Canada systematically tries to minimize the number of francophones it hires? I have trouble understanding that a private company that wants to provide excellent service would not be looking for solutions. On the contrary, more francophones must be hired, or at least bilingual employees who can provide service in the two official languages. The people at Air Canada must be getting tired of hearing us talk about this.

If I owned a company, I would not be looking for this type of publicity, I would be looking for positive publicity, and I would take into account my customers' expectations and ensure that I gave them the best possible service.

Second, you mentioned, Mr. Martel, that you prefer that the complaint be sent directly to the Commissioner of Official Languages. In one way, I have no problem with that, but if we want to ensure that the work is done properly and that we get concrete results—because apparently there have not been that many after 32 years if I understood you correctly—it would be a good idea to have a four-copy form. However, there should be a note to say that if the person wants the complaint sent to the Commissioner of Official Languages only, only that copy should be taken and sent to the Commissioner of Official Languages. However, if the complainant is not an employee or a business person and has no objection to sending a copy to Air Canada, Transport Canada and Treasury Board, then he or she would use the complete, four-copy form. In this way, next year we will have concrete figures on what happened in 2001 or 2002, and we will be able to determine whether or not there has been an improvement and we will ask Air Canada to come and provide explanations if necessary.

I think these are the tools we should have in order to improve the situation. There are some people from Air Canada present here today. I am quite sure that they are very interested in providing the best possible service. I cannot understand the problem, but I would like to hear your explanation.

Mr. Serge Martel: I will start with your second question, about the forms. What you say is true. There could be four copies, but complainants could have the option of sending their complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages only and having it remain confidential. There is no problem there. Rather than forcing people to send their complaint off in all directions, they should be given a choice.

Mr. Claude Drouin: That is what I was saying, Mr. Martel. We could put the copy for the Commissioner of Official Languages on top, and tell people that if they want their complaint to go to the Commissioner's Office only, they need only fill in this first copy of the form.

Mr. Serge Martel: I couldn't agree more, Mr. Drouin.

In your first question, you asked why Air Canada was behaving in this way. Is it a corporate philosophy? We have drawn some conclusions on the basis of the act and the figures we have.

I would point out that our statistics prove that between 1985 and 1989, over 25% of the pilots hired by Air Canada were francophones. I think the average was around 30%. We will send you the figures for those years. The president at the time was Pierre Jeanniot.

During his tenure, Mr. Jeanniot made a tremendous effort to promote equitable participation at Air Canada. As we know, there was no hiring between 1991 and 1995. Air Canada began hiring pilots again starting in 1995.

Is this attitude attributable to the importance assigned to this issue by presidents of the corporation? Perhaps. How can we put our finger on the problem? You can be sure that if we had known exactly what the problem was, we would have mentioned it in our brief today.

Mr. Claude Drouin: I will rephrase my question. Today, one of the most important things for companies is their profitability, and the profits they make for their shareholders. The better the service they provide, the more likely they are to be profitable, as I mentioned earlier.

I'm not criticizing you, but perhaps you have not focussed on the cause of this problem enough. In my region, the Beauce, companies want to ensure that customers get the best possible service. If there is a problem in this regard, they find a solution. They want to correct problems in order to keep their customers.

• 1625

I have difficulty understanding that Air Canada would systematically favour unilingual anglophones for positions involving customer service, as pilots or flight attendants. This makes no sense. Today, in 2001, our responsibility is to give customers the best possible service. Perhaps there would be a way of looking at this differently, to try to find the problem. We are going to do our job as well. We have had some complaints from colleagues who said that on a number of occasions they had service in English only from Air Canada. We want this to change. We want bilingual service all the time, coast to coast.

We will work with you, but I would like you to look at the situation from this point of view.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Would you care to comment, Mr. Alain?

Mr. Antonin Alain (Vice-President, Association des Gens de l'air du Québec): I would like to comment on the fact that in the past, when pilots were hired, there were as many francophones as anglophones on the panel interviewing the candidate. Now, there are no francophones involved. There are only anglophones, and everything takes place in English only. The poor little guy from Quebec who does not have much opportunity to speak English has a very hard time. The panel decides immediately that he is unsuitable, and refuses to hire the person. Once, the panel even told the candidate that he was not competent, but the person was a lawyer and had an M.A. He also had his pilot training. His case was reviewed later, and the decision was that the panel should have looked at this a little more carefully. That is a major problem at Air Canada.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will come back to this.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): We will go back to the Beauce again.

Thank you for being here. I am sure it is not easy for you to do this. You are the leaders of the Gens de l'air, and you are fighting for a good cause. As a former union representative, I can understand your position. When you criticize your boss, there are sometimes negative consequences. I would like to congratulate you on being here today to demonstrate that the reports we have heard do not really reflect what happens.

Personally, in recent weeks, I have been on Air Canada's case a great deal, because I do not agree with what its representatives said. I am from northeastern New Brunswick, and I travel on Air Canada affiliates. I am really disappointed with the service. I think the evidence is clear. For example, I arrived at the Ottawa Airport, and services at the airport itself were in English only. It is quite difficult when you have to wait half an hour to be served, when you get to the counter and you have to ask for service in our own language. What happens to people who cannot speak English at all? We have two official languages. When Air Canada, formerly a federal Crown corporation, was purchased, its responsibility for the two official languages was part of the deal. This is included in the contract that was signed.

I would like to ask you a few questions that I have asked at earlier committee meetings. I may be repeating myself, but I think it is important that I ask you these questions.

Air Nova has only one flight attendant on its planes. Air Canada said that its only responsibility was to ensure safety, that the flight attendant provided the instructions in his or her language, and that a cassette recording of the instructions in the other language was good enough. You are close to the flight attendants, because you are in the cockpit. That is why I am asking you this question. Air Canada also said that if people wanted service in their language, they could request it from other people working on the plane. I have never seen a Dash 8 pilot give us any instructions.

I was on a plane between Ottawa and Montreal three weeks ago, and the service was in English only. The flight attendant did not speak French at all.

• 1630

I have a few questions for you on this. Are there regular Air Nova flights between Halifax and Newfoundland, on which employees do not speak any French at all? Normally, in Quebec, staff can speak both languages, but in the other provinces, one language is enough. Even on Air Ontario's flights between Ottawa and Montreal, English is the only language spoken. I would like to ask about Halifax—Newfoundland, because those are two provinces that are almost completely English-speaking. I would like to see whether the problem exists in this region.

Mr. Serge Martel: First of all, we should look at Bill C-26. It now requires that Air Canada's regional affiliates comply with the Official Languages Act. I am a former Air Alliance pilot, a company that was based in Quebec City. All our crews are French- speaking. I have never travelled on Air Nova as a passenger between Halifax and Deer Lake. So, I cannot tell you whether there is bilingual service on board such flights. However, I can tell you that if you see me on that route, you will get bilingual service. That I can tell you. But is that true on all flights? Unfortunately, I cannot tell you that.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You do not have that information?

Mr. Serge Martel: I do not have that information.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I see.

My next question is about flight attendants on Air Nova flights between Montreal and Bathurst. Because of Air Alliance, we are now seeing many people from the Quebec region on these planes. I don't like changing the subject from pilots to flight attendants, but I think you are familiar with the problems in this regard as well. As far as safety goes, we were told that if there were an emergency on an aircraft, all the information would be provided in English, not French. A flight attendant told me that about two weeks ago.

Mr. Serge Martel: Your sources are correct.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You still have some time left.

Mr. Yvon Godin: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... there is no cassette.

You were saying that one thing is certain about Air Canada's policy: people have to speak English in order to get a job at Air Canada.

Mr. Serge Martel: It is not specified that flight attendants speak only English or French. They're simply not designated bilingual. So we do not know whether they are francophones or anglophones.

Mr. Yvon Godin: But in Quebec, people hired as flight attendants were bilingual.

Mr. Serge Martel: Yes, in the case of the regional carriers.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The act is clear: since July 2000...

Mr. Serge Martel: July 1, 2000.

Mr. Yvon Godin: ... they are supposed to comply with the act.

Mr. Serge Martel: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: If you violate the collective agreement, does Air Canada give you one year to correct your breach of the collective agreement?

Mr. Serge Martel: I do not understand what you mean.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You said that you have a collective agreement. If one of your members, a pilot for Air Canada, Air Alliance or Air Nova, violates the collective agreement, do you have one year in which to correct the breach of the collective agreement?

Mr. Serge Martel: Yes, but we must be careful here. Are you referring to the fact that I mentioned that Air Canada's flight attendants' collective agreement was not in the two official languages?

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, that is not what I mean.

Mr. Serge Martel: We have to be careful here. Bill C-26 required affiliates to comply with Part IV of the act, which is not the part that deals with "language of service." Bill C-26 does not require the regional affiliates to comply with the "language of work" and "equitable participation" provisions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I will have to stop you there. We will come back later, if you like.

Mr. Binet.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Martel and Mr. Alain.

Mr. Serge Martel: Good afternoon.

• 1635

Mr. Gérard Binet: So far, we have heard from a number of witnesses regarding Air Canada, and everyone around this table is aware of the problem. There is also no doubt that all the members of this committee might not be here four years from now, because there will be an election and other changes.

However, do you think the committee is strong enough to deal with this problem?

Mr. Serge Martel: I think we always have whatever strength we want to allow ourselves to have. When a group of senators and members of Parliament get together around a table to engage in intellectual reflections of this sort, that is already a step toward trying to deal with the problem.

In order to solve a problem, we must first of all acknowledge that one exists.

Mr. Gérard Binet: We are all aware of that.

Mr. Serge Martel: Then the appropriate recommendations must be made to the Governor in Council or to the minister responsible for the Official Languages Act.

Another fundamental point in my view, is that there must be a political will on both sides to do something about the problem. As we know, the language issue is always very sensitive in Canada. At some point, we have to put aside political and electoral considerations and think rather about the future of Canada. When it was introduced in 1969, the Official Languages Act was designed to support Canadian unity. We all remember the many reports that preceded the passage of the legislation.

Something strange emerged from the statistics published in The Gazette about a year ago. Francophones in Quebec were asked whether they identified themselves first as Quebeckers or Canadians. In 1970, 21% identified themselves as Quebeckers first, and in 1999, 64% did so. In 1970, 79% identified themselves as Canadians, while 35% do so today.

The act was supposed to bring everyone together. Our association thinks that the time has come, 30 years later, to see where we are at, to examine whether we have achieved what we wanted to, and what remains to be done.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Mr. Godin, a former union leader, spoke about the merger of the two companies. Do you think this could be the main reason for the slower rate of progress, or is there a lack of desire to move things forward?

Mr. Serge Martel: Look...

Mr. Gérard Binet: The fact is that there is now a union; the company cannot send someone...

Mr. Serge Martel: Yes, but we would not want to open a can of worms here.

The fact remains that union problems are union problems, and seniority list problems are seniority list problems. To my mind, the seniority list and merger problems experienced by Air Canada have not caused the problems associated with implementing the Official Languages Act. Air Canada had those problems before, and still has them today. Rest assured it will still have them tomorrow. I don't think they are caused by the merger, or the seniority lists.

• 1640

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): A very brief question.

Mr. Gérard Binet: When a flight attendant or pilot position becomes vacant, do you know what percentage of francophones and anglophones apply? It's great wanting to hire a francophone, but personally, when I take a plane, what I want first and foremost is a good pilot. But what is the ratio of anglophones and francophones applying?

Mr. Serge Martel: Those are Air Canada's internal data. As you know, it is already difficult to obtain data...

Mr. Gérard Binet: Are there really enough French-speaking, qualified pilots in Canada to fill the positions that become vacant?

Mr. Serge Martel: Around 1985, we did have those data. In fact, the latest data we received from Air Canada date back to 1978. When Air Canada appeared before the committee in 1985, the figure was 23% French-speaking commercial pilots. As we know, Transport Canada does not keep statistics on pilots' original language.

Are there enough pilots? There is one factor we have to remember. Since young people know that their chances of getting a job are lower, they hesitate before investing in a pilot's course, unless they register at the Chicoutimi CEGEP, where the government pays for the course. These days, becoming a pilot costs at least $40,000. Kids who are about 20 don't usually have that kind of money. And if they have no guarantee of a job at the end of the line, they are significantly less motivated to invest $40,000 in becoming a pilot.

Mr. Gérard Binet: There are two pilots in my family—they are not siblings—and it does indeed cost a lot.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Binet. Your time is up. We will come back to you.

Senator Rivest.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): Good afternoon. I believe you noted that I was somewhat skeptical about Air Canada's presentation, which seemed to be something along the lines of a public relations document, in spite of the personal, pro- bilingualism stance of the person making the presentation. Their presentation was full of euphemisms, and sentences like: we are making a great deal of progress, but some problems remain. I therefore share your...

Obviously, everyone is trying to determine why Air Canada has so many problems in understanding and assuming its responsibilities under the Official Languages Act. Nobody is actually giving us the true reason.

There are a number of reasons, but the true and overriding reason is that Air Canada is a private company which has to be competitive. While we privatized Air Canada, we also imposed a public obligation on it. This public obligation, this public responsibility, requires it to implement bilingualism in all its operations.

This is the kind of thing that happens when a company must pay its taxes; the company tries to pay as little as possible in taxes, while still remaining within the letter of the law. It seems to me that Air Canada is doing exactly the same thing with respect to bilingualism, because bilingualism is very expensive for it to implement. It is a financial burden for Air Canada. So I think that we should simply tell Air Canada very clearly that it is required to implement bilingualism in full, both when it hires pilots and flight attendants, and when it provides services.

Of course, we would like to see linguistic duality implemented in the same proportion as it exists in the population. We tell ourselves that a company like Air Canada has a responsibility toward linguistic duality, and since Canada's population is 25% francophone, then 25% of pilots and flight attendants should be francophone.

But are those percentages the same among passengers? For example, are anglophone passengers... I assume that in the western provinces, where distances are greater, people fly more. Toronto and Montreal are centres with a lot of... Do you have any idea about the numbers? How many francophones and anglophones use Air Canada as a means of transportation?

Mr. Serge Martel: No, we do not have those figures.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Can those figures be obtained?

Mr. Serge Martel: No. The figures probably exist, perhaps at Statistics Canada. I know that when Air Canada appeared before the committee in the 1980s, it did provide those statistics. At the time, it probably obtained them from Statistics Canada.

• 1645

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: As Mr. Drouin was saying about profitability, if Air Canada knows that the percentage of francophones using its services is 17%, rather than 25%—the same as the percentage of francophones in Canada's population—then it will provide only 17% of services in French. Do you see what I mean?

Mr. Serge Martel: Yes.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: My second question relates to my concern about pilots. You said that in the mid-1980s, Mr. Jeanniot was making an effort, and we could feel that the will was there. I'll say for you what you are not saying: you do not feel that Air Canada's management is particularly concerned about the issue of bilingualism. They have a great many problems above and beyond linguistic duality, which is clearly not their priority. We can say so, because it is quite obvious. Air Canada will try to comply with the letter of the law, but will certainly go no further.

With respect to hiring francophone pilots, you provided figures that are... We can also discuss the figures, but when Canadian is integrated, a great many pilots will come in. Canadian is a large company, with many pilots. But it has almost no francophone pilots. Once they are all integrated—the process is already underway—the percentage of francophone pilots at Air Canada is going to fall significantly.

This cannot be corrected overnight, even if your lawyer/pilot is hired. Air Canada says that courses would be given. But giving courses is not easy. It might take five or six years at least before these people learn French. So what will the real figures at Air Canada be? If your current percentage of francophones is 20%, 16% or 15%, what will it be once you have incorporated Canadian staff? Do you have any idea?

Mr. Serge Martel: francophone pilots? We can give you the figures. In any case, they were in the brief we presented to the Transport Committee on May 3, 2000. Those were 1999 figures. Of course, other people have come in since then.

According to our assessment, Air Canada had 15.8% francophone pilots, while Canadian had 5.6%. After the merger, this resulted in 12% francophone pilots. Obviously, there is now a grey area, because we are fluctuating between 12.5% and 15.8%, depending on the source of the figures. In any case, some people even claim that there are no under-representation problems. But in any case, these figures give us 12% after the merger.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: So you are obviously far from any kind of representation of Canada's language demographics, perhaps for a long time. In fact, it could take a very long time to correct this, unless you very quickly hire francophone pilots.

Mr. Serge Martel: It could take some time, yes.

You also said that bilingualism was profitable. I am referring to the years in 1981, 1985 and 1987: every time people have appeared here, they have said that their competitors did not have the same financial burden they did. That is what they said to the committee. Yet bilingualism can also be profitable. At one point, in 1994, I believe...

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Because it is.

Mr. Serge Martel: Yes, indeed. Mr. Jean-Jacques Bourgeault, then vice-president at the time, stated that Air Canada had 75% to 80% of the Quebec market. I believe those were the figures in the report. Mr. Chairman, I apologize if I am not quoting the exact year, but I do know that those figures were mentioned at that time. So, yes, bilingualism does pay.

Now, it's a monopoly, so Air Canada no longer has a choice.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: So I conclude that, since Air Canada has become a monopoly, it might interpret its official language obligations very literally, and in fact do as little as possible.

Mr. Serge Martel: We might end up with other referrals to the Federal Court.

Mr. Gérard Binet: If there is a good committee, I hope that could change.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier, your second round of questions.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will be brief, but to the point. Please send me the answer in writing, because I think it will be difficult to give now.

In your brief, you talked about regulatory measures for the application of section 40 in Part VI of the act, which deals with equitable participation. You say that the committee should recommend to the government, or to Parliament, that regulations be formulated to improve the situation. I have no idea what you mean by that. You might perhaps be able to send me clarifications. Do you know what I mean?

• 1650

Mr. Serge Martel: Well I can put one idea forward off the cuff. As a first stage, in the light of future retirements and market opportunities, we might give the company a deadline, or establish a timeframe to achieve objectives. Of course, this would depend on how open the company was to such an approach and the company's progress towards achieving the 23% or 24% objective. This might be one way of going about it. In any case, I think that one committee member, the Member for Beauce, has already mentioned it.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Martel, several years ago, the objective was set with Mr. Jeanniot; it was set at almost 25%, and we never achieved it. When I say we, I do exclude myself because I am not a pilot; however, this was very frustrating.

The problem lies in the statistics we currently obtain. When I began my questions, I said that I did not believe in the statistics submitted to us. I think the fault lies with Treasury Board, which is not demanding enough of Air Canada. The fault also lies with Air Canada, which submits misleading statistics—and I am trying to be courteous, here. Do you understand? As a result, we are misled. As a result, members and senators have trouble understanding the problem. Who is telling the truth?

That said, I will also tell you everything else that is on my mind. Earlier, you conceded that air carriers all have an obligation to provide their passengers with instructions in both official languages. Is that true in principle?

Mr. Serge Martel: We have to be logical. I cannot refer to the act on that. It seems that you have obtained information, and I would imagine that you are right. If you tell me that you have obtained information, I will believe you, but I myself have no information on this. I cannot quote you any specific sections of the act. We would have to contact Transport Canada.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have this in writing from the minister. I have to believe someone.

Mr. Serge Martel: Yes, yes. Believe the minister.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I'm just a senator, a backbencher.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Your last question, Senator.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In your brief, you state that Transport Canada should make some provisions for international carriers, that some provisions of the Official Languages Act should apply to international carriers. What are those provisions, Mr. Martel?

Mr. Serge Martel: The Association believes that Part IV of the Official Languages Act, which deals with the language of service to the public, should apply to all air carriers in Canada operating with Transport Canada licences.

There is another interesting point that we should highlight. In January, we were talking about cabotage—licences for foreign carriers to fly domestic routes in Canada. At the time, the foreign carriers—which of course operated with Transport Canada licences—knew what the procedures and laws were in this country. So instead of doing something very sudden that they are unprepared for, why don't we begin by educating those already operating here; once we do that, others who may want to fly domestic routes in Canada will know the rules of the game.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I quite agree that, when a major carrier wants to fly domestic routes in Canada, it should know that there are two official languages in Canada under the OLA, and that they will have to use both.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Mr. Drouin.

Were those all your questions, Senator?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is not a lot of time.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Claude Drouin: I will be brief, and you can always provide answers later if you wish.

You raise an important point in your answer to the question by my colleague Gérard, on the $ 40,000 cost of becoming a pilot. Do you have any statistics on the number of people who are taking courses to become pilots in Quebec in 2001, or who took such courses in 2000 or 1999?

Mr. Serge Martel: I think those statistics are available at Transport Canada. Unless I am mistaken, you would have access to them at Transport Canada.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Good. I would like to obtain them. Mr. Alain, you mentioned that the lawyer you referred to had difficulty speaking English. Was he a pilot? Was he applying for a pilot's position?

Mr. Antonin Alain: Yes.

Mr. Claude Drouin: In light of Mr. Martel's comments, I believe you have to be sure that you speak English very well when you are a pilot, because internationally orders and instructions are provided in English. In other words, any new pilot absolutely has to be able to speak English. I could not apply to be a pilot, because I still have difficulty speaking English.

• 1655

Mr. Antonin Alain: Yes, but a plane is a plane and flies like a plane. Speaking English doesn't make you a safer pilot.

Mr. Claude Drouin: That is not what I mean, Mr. Alain. If I give you instructions you fail to understand and you have 250 passengers on board, you are endangering their lives.

Mr. Antonin Alain: Please listen. In 1970, something happened to me in Las Vegas. Two of my engines caught fire and I had to make an emergency landing in Las Vegas. As captain of the aircraft, I spoke English and French to everyone. There was no panic on board. Everyone was just fine, and the landing went well. People made comments about how wonderful it was that the captain could speak to them in their language—over half the people on board were francophones.

I find that Air Canada and other carriers in this country are not ensuring the safety of passengers by are not requiring that all employees—including pilots—speak both languages.

If Transport Canada wants to ensure safety, it is high time for it to push the company to act, and insist that it become bilingual. At present, we find that French is always excluded. As you leave from Toronto, you will no longer hear French. To the guy who gets on in Quebec City or Montreal and flies to Vancouver or somewhere in Asia, we say that there are bilingual people on board, but the bilingual people speak Japanese, Korean and Chinese. Just try to get someone to understand you.

Mr. Claude Drouin: That was not my question, but that is okay. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier, one last question.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, in February I wrote to Air Canada asking for a copy of its official languages plan and program. Have you seen that document?

I was unable to obtain it. I asked our Air Canada witnesses whether I could have a copy of it, and they said yes, but I have not yet received it. My request was submitted five months ago. Who do I have to ask before I get a copy?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The committee will officially request a copy.

Mr. Serge Martel: Senator, we waited two years to get language policies.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Do you have them now?

Mr. Serge Martel: They are the 1999 language policies.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will request them on behalf of the committee.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: When I asked my question about the collective agreement earlier, I was trying to get at a specific point, but I didn't have time to get there.

I was talking about violations of the collective agreement. Generally, when an employee breaches the collective agreement, the employer immediately takes disciplinary measures. Now here is what I am getting at: we have a statute here in Canada which clearly states that Air Canada and all affiliated carriers, like Air Ontario, Air Alliance and Air Nova, have been subject to that statute since July 1, 2000. If we want the legislation to be effective, our committee should recommend to the government that it impose disciplinary measures on Air Canada if it breaches the Official Languages Act on board its aircraft.

Mr. Serge Martel: You are talking about coercive measures, like fines and penalties. I don't really know whether fines would have an impact.

Mr. Yvon Godin: This problem has been around for 32 years. What can we do to solve it?

Mr. Serge Martel: Perhaps the solution...

Mr. Yvon Godin: It is all very well to say we will change things and add provisions to section 10, but for 32 years now there have been violations... At the time, Air Canada was not a private company. Even when the government owned Air Canada, there was a problem. As a francophone, when I sit in a plane and fly to Vancouver, I change carriers and I like the pilot to speak to me in French when I am on board the aircraft. That is my right. And it is also the law in Canada. Here, there are two official languages. Air Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act, and I want people to speak to me in my own language when I board a plane.

So what is the solution?

You say that we should add some provision or other to section 10 of the act, but the company is not complying with the act. So what can we do so that the issue is finally dealt with once and for all?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It is up to the committee to put forward—

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm just asking whether he has any other suggestions, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): As you wish. That's it.

One last comment.

Mr. Serge Martel: I have a comment in response to Mr. Godin's question. Is that what you would like me to say?

• 1700

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We would also like your concluding comments, please.

Mr. Serge Martel: Very well.

First of all, I would like to thank you.

With respect to the recommendations, I can say to Mr. Godin that one of those recommendations—which did not come from us—was to ask the Canadian Transportation Agency, which allocates international routes, to give or take away routes from some carriers, to juggles routes. Remember that whenever you take a route away from a carrier, that carrier gets less revenue. Money does talk—and the language of money is very loud indeed. That is the suggestion we made at the time.

Now, Mr. Chairman, senators and members, I would like to thank you for your... Forgive me, ladies.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.)): We are not invisible.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Serge Martel: That's because we don't often come here. We would of course like to be here more often. In any case, we would like to thank you for your consideration. If we can help you in any way, we would be pleased to do so. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Members of the committee, allow me to ask one or two brief questions.

On page 10 of your brief, you refer to Michel Bastarache, a Justice of the Supreme Court. Could you please give us a reference for that quote? From what decision is that quote taken?

Mr. Serge Martel: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is on the language laws of Canada. I can—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You can send us the reference.

Secondly, a few moments ago you said that you had a document on Air Canada's language policy on hand. I would ask you to share that with committee members as well. I would also ask the clerk to send us the briefs submitted to the Transportation Committee on May 3, so that we have a full package of recent documentation.

Mr. Martel and Mr. Alain, I would like to thank you on behalf of this committee. This was a very interesting discussion, which I believe will enliven or even revive our efforts to achieve some kind of conclusion. The committee has every intention of ensuring that Air Canada comply much more effectively with the Official Languages Act, and of seeing the number of complaints drop. We know of course that complaints can never be eliminated completely.

So do not be surprised if we take this issue up again in the fall. If I may speak on behalf of the committee, I believe that we intend to continue our work and take advantage of the summer recess to conduct more in-depth research on any issues that remain unclear. We will have to examine some aspects and statistics much more closely. You have brought us a great deal of food for thought today, and my colleagues and I thank you.

Mr. Serge Martel: Thank you.

Mr. Antonin Alain: Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): On Tuesday, we will try to consider an interim report—a stopover, if you want to call it that—of our study on Air Canada.

The meeting is adjourned.