LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, December 3, 2001

• 1759

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I would first ask those with cameras on their shoulders to leave the room.

A voice: We cannot stay?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No. Unfortunately, the rules of the House of Commons require me to request that you leave the room.

I believe it is 6 o'clock. I would therefore, if I may, call the meeting to order. Welcome, Mr. Milton.

[English]

Mr. Milton, if you wish to make an initial presentation and introduce the colleagues who are with you, the floor is yours. After that, we will proceed on an alternating basis with a question and answer session.

• 1800

Mr. Robert A. Milton (President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Canada): Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair, members of Parliament and honourable senators, on behalf of Air Canada I'm here to address your concerns with respect to our obligations under the Official Languages Act.

[Translation]

Before I begin, I would like to apologize to the committee for being unable to speak to you before now. As you know, Air Canada, like the entire airline industry, has met with unprecedented challenges since September 11th. My main concern is Air Canada's survival. I would like to thank the members of the committee for being patient with me.

[English]

I should add this is the first committee I have appeared before since September 11. Now that I am here, I want to ensure that our appearance is as thorough and useful as possible. To that end I've brought with me several colleagues who I'd like to introduce to you at this time. They will help me address any questions you may have on any area, and in particular their areas of responsibility.

I'd first like to present someone who you have already met and who works on a day-to-day basis on these matters, Michelle Perreault-Ieraci. Michelle is Air Canada's ombudsman and senior director of employment equity and linguistic affairs.

Also with me today is Peter Donolo. He is someone many of you will already be well acquainted with. Peter is Air Canada's senior vice-president of corporate affairs and government relations. He has oversight for all of our corporate communications, and will be able to address any concerns you may have in that area.

Susan Welscheid our vice-president of people. She is responsible for the administration of our workforce, and will be happy to provide any insights you may require with respect to the people who make up Air Canada.

Last and certainly not least is Ted D'Arcy, our vice-president of in-flight service.

Let me begin by admitting to a few realities. First, I know that 137 complaints were filed against Air Canada last year by people who felt we were not living up to our obligations under the Official Languages Act. I want to be very specific. I take our responsibilities under the act very seriously. To the extent that we may have failed some 137 individuals, I am sorry and want to assure them and you that we are working to minimize those situations in the future.

That being said, we must be careful to not characterize these failures in a broad negative light. While I don't want to undermine the importance of the rights of those 137 Canadians who filed complaints, we should be honest in considering the context of that number.

Last year Air Canada carried just over 30 million passengers. Our own studies have indicated that from the time of the first call to our reservation centre to inquire on a price and seat availability to the time they leave their flight at their destination, there are, on average, seven customer contacts with each passenger by Air Canada employees. So what we are talking about here are 137 complaints out of 210 million customer contacts that occurred at our company last year. I don't want to discount the rights of those complainants, but by the same token it is not fair to isolate this number and draw conclusions that are not warranted.

• 1805

I would suggest that Air Canada has by far more direct customer contacts than any federal institution. While we have work to do to improve our delivery of official language services, let us not characterize these failures that are inevitably going to happen as being symptomatic of a negative attitude.

I also want to admit to you that through our integration with Canadian Airlines, difficulties have arisen with respect to our compliance with the act. But let's remember from where we have come in order to properly assess how we are doing. Canadian Airlines was not subject to the Official Languages Act. Unlike Air Canada, Canadian Airlines did not have a policy of hiring bilingual staff. Air Canada's workforce jumped from 23,000 to about 40,000 employees overnight. It was inevitable that our bilingual capacity would be diluted.

On the other hand, by taking Canadian employees, Air Canada has saved thousands and thousands of jobs. We are working hard to improve the bilingual abilities of these employees, but in the meantime, surely no one would reasonably suggest that people should lose their careers because of this situation. Instead, I think we can all agree that our collective focus should be on making things better going forward.

As Michelle informed you this past spring, we have been conducting language-demand surveys on routes that had previously been served in English only by the former Canadian Airlines or Canadian Regional Airlines. We have been working diligently with our employee groups at the former Canadian Airlines to implement language training programs. In addition, ground and in-flight personnel scheduling departments were mandated to consider our language compliance requirements in all future staffing integration outcomes. While all of this has been very expensive for us and our customers, who ultimately pay for all these expenses, we undertake these costs respectfully, as part of doing business.

I'd like to now turn from where we've been to where we are going. A few weeks ago I met with the Commissioner of Official Languages, Dr. Adam, in my office in Montreal. Our meeting was productive and useful. From my perspective, I wanted to assure Dr. Adam that I take our compliance requirements seriously and I am committed to making them happen. I think I can speak for us both when I say that we both departed that meeting with a little bit better understanding of each other's situation.

One of the take-away items from that meeting was an agreement that we would work with our offices to develop an action plan to deliver on our commitments. That action plan will be based on some of our best practices, which are designed to ensure that our language service requirements are recognized in all aspects of the business. I would like to review with you some of those everyday working practices from which a solid framework for delivering on our obligations with respect to the Official Languages Act will be fulfilled.

We have dedicated official languages staff headed by a senior director, reporting directly to me. We have language coordinators at all six in-flight service bases at all five major airports, at all four call centres, and in every operational and administrative branch of the corporation to oversee delivery of service and quality of maintenance of languages.

We have an exhaustive official languages policy covering all sections of the legislation and their applicability to Air Canada. We have had our own internal language school for over 25 years, with programs tailored specifically to the Air Canada world since 1993 and to the regional airlines world since 2000, at a cost of $12 million over four years, which includes the cost of backfilling our agents when they're on training.

We strictly enforce the policy of exclusively hiring bilingual public contact employees, and we have been developing special recruitment processes in 10 major cities to implement it. We have been testing all public contact candidates at time of hiring, and are retesting 2,000 of them annually to ensure quality service in their second language.

• 1810

We have bilingual coverage on board every single Air Canada flight, including those without significant demand. We make public announcements at the beginning of flights detailing the language capability of our in-flight crew. We conduct internal quality assurance surveys at both Air Canada and Air Canada Regional to verify the quality of announcements in both official languages at airports. We conduct an ongoing third party telephone survey to determine the level of customer satisfaction in terms of service announcements in both official languages. We have a customer service plan that includes a commitment to provide call centre telephone service to customers in both official languages.

Air Canada has signed memoranda of agreement on advertisements in the minority press as well as on ground services at airports with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We have revised signage to ensure compliance on all Canadian Airlines' former aircraft.

We are working with the teams responsible for launching our new products, such as Tango, on their language obligations. We have transferred performance accountability to airport general managers. We have inventoried all training programs to ensure documentation in both official languages. We have worked to ensure the completion of a language profile for all former Canadian Airlines employees as well as all of those omitted at Air Canada in the past, to better understand our linguistic representation.

We have cooperated with the Treasury Board in designing a question on equitable participation that is in line with the spirit of the legislation and that would be used by all regulated institutions.

Finally, we have introduced a new translation nightshift in order to cover urgent translation requests 24 hours a day.

The results of these concrete steps have been impressive. We have seen no overall increase in complaints. In fact, we have seen a decrease in complaints since the levels of 1992. Whereas passengers increased from 16 million to over 30 million during the period from 1992 to 2000, in 1992 the commissioner reported 192 complaints for Air Canada and in 2000 she reported 137 complaints for Air Canada, of which 101 are still under investigation.

Even if there were no complaints, or for that matter even if there were no Official Languages Act, Air Canada would still provide bilingual services to our customers. Why? Because our customers want it.

I was interested to hear of a previous witness' statement extolling the virtues of other carriers whose in-flight crew proudly wear the flags of the countries whose languages their employees can speak on board. As a matter of fact, we have been doing the same thing for years and will continue to do so. We do this because, like you, we firmly believe that the ability to do business in numerous languages is an incredible asset to any modern company.

The important thing, to me, is that you leave here today feeling that Air Canada has never intentionally neglected its language obligations, that it has never done anything to reduce them. As has been stated so often in the media in recent months, recent events—that is, Bill C-26 and the merger with Canadian Airlines—have actually shown that this company is proactive when the situation warrants. There may be gaps, but there is never a lack of commitment.

With that, I want to end my remarks and turn it over to you for your questions. Thanks for your attention. As a group, we will be happy to answer your questions.

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

Mr. Hill, seven minutes.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Milton, for your comments.

Regarding recent rumours about another discount carrier potentially launched by Air Canada, could you let me know how you would see that carrier in relationship to the obligations the parent company has under bilingualism?

• 1815

Mr. Robert Milton: In absolutely any flying activity we're contemplating, we look to fully abide by the provisions of the act, as I've mentioned to you today.

Mr. Grant Hill: Okay.

In recent testimony to the Standing Committee on Transport not long ago, November 7, Calin Rovinescu, the executive vice-president of corporate development and strategy for Air Canada, said, and I quote:

...it's entirely appropriate in these very difficult times to ask the question, why is there one set of standards for one private sector company and a different set of rules for another private sector company?

He was referring to suggestions that this was possibly unfair and hoped that if there were a level playing field this would “unshackle Air Canada from all measure of regulatory burden imposed upon it by the Air Canada Public Partipation Act”. At that point I'm quoting again. Is that a position you agree with?

Mr. Robert Milton: My position vis-à-vis languages is that, as I've said, we fully abide by the provisions of the act. My view is that there's a strong benefit to operating on the basis that we do, offering service in both languages.

In fact, my interpretation of where Calin Rovinescu was going with regard to the act was that, given the importance, it seems to us that all airlines should be bound by the requirement to provide service in both languages.

Mr. Grant Hill: So you're suggesting that all private sector airlines in Canada should be bound by exactly the same guidelines that Air Canada is operating under.

Mr. Robert Milton: I think that would be a reasonable expectation. Again, I can only speak for Air Canada. As far as Air Canada goes, we will abide by the provisions of the act.

Mr. Grant Hill: To be very specific, then, these comments in many sectors were... It was suggested that a level playing field would not be raising everybody's bar but lowering your bar, and you're saying that is absolutely incorrect.

Mr. Robert Milton: In my view, while there are clearly aspects to Air Canada's existence that are unique, it would be nice to have an absolutely level playing field that would involve lowering the bar in many areas. In this area, in terms of language capacity of the airline, we will not look to degrade.

As I've mentioned, we constantly strive to improve our performance. But I don't think it's inappropriate that all carriers—and I guess this is one of the things this committee is looking at—that provide air transportation in this country, domiciled Canadian airlines, be able to offer it in both languages of the country. But again, that's something for you to determine, obviously, not me.

Mr. Grant Hill: One of the things that is mentioned specifically in the act is that services would be provided by the federal government “where numbers warrant”. I heard you say that in some areas services were really not warranted. Could you give me some idea, in your judgment, what the phrase “where numbers warrant” means?

Mr. Robert Milton: Michelle can speak specifically to what the act details, but we actively survey markets to ensure that we are providing an appropriate level of language capability.

Michelle, perhaps you could enhance the answer.

[Translation]

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci (Ombudsman and Senior Director, Employment Equity and Linguistic Affairs, Air Canada): The regulations under the Official Languages Act provide that both on the ground and in the air, where the demand is 5%, Air Canada must provide service in both official languages. So there are some Air Canada flights for which flight attendants are not absolutely required to be bilingual. We have been doing it anyway for 10 or 15 years, but the act does not require us to provide this service on all our flights.

On the ground, the regulations require that in airports where the government has determined there to be “significant demand”, Air Canada, as well as all other tenants of these airports, must provide bilingual service. So Air Canada does not have to provide bilingual service in all Canadian airports either.

• 1820

That said, we have bilingual staff in probably every airport we serve, but that is what “where demand warrants” or “where numbers warrants” means.

Mr. Grant Hill: Thank you very much.

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

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): In federal institutions, Mr. Milton, there is an official languages champion, in the agencies and the departments. You are the champion in terms of complaints to the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

I find it very hard to understand why, after 30 years, Air Canada still has problems with official languages. I could quote statements by various commissioners, since 1972, about language training and service to the public.

By the way,

[English]

the level playing field Mr. Hill talks about only concerns in cases of private airlines the transport—

[Translation]

what is it called?—the Department of Transport directives on information, security and transportation. That does not concern the Official Languages Act in any way for the private sector. You and your subsidiaries are bound by the Official Languages Act, your subsidiaries specifically since the adoption of Bill C-26, under Part IV, Communications with and services to the public. A clear distinction is necessary, and I want it to be crystal clear, so that everything cannot be lumped together, as you did in your answer, treating all services provided in airports or in the air in the same way.

As I was saying, it is a bit hard for me to understand what exactly is going on. Is the act too weak or easy to get around, or is there a lack of willingness?

Listening to you earlier, I had the impression you understood what we were talking about, and I was glad to hear you say your commitment to the Official Languages Act was firm. That's great.

A few weeks ago, or maybe a month or two back, we heard from the unions that deal with Air Canada. I asked them whether Air Canada's problems with official languages were due to seniority or to some of the contracts between the unions and Air Canada, or perhaps even to staff reductions you had to make.

I consider your linguistic obligations and responsibilities toward Canadians to be mandatory. Air Canada is bound by the Official Languages Act; the other airlines are not. Canadian was not. However, it was understood that airlines doing business in Canada were subject to the Transport Act, which, if I am not mistaken, includes official languages requirements for safety instructions.

I would like to come back to the issue of training. When I discussed this with the unions, they said it was not a sovereignty issue, but one of language training. They are not provided sufficient language training. That was the consensus among the unions.

What percent of your budget is earmarked for language training for your ground and flight personnel? That is quite a straight- forward question.

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: Michelle, can you provide...

[Translation]

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: No, I cannot answer that directly. What I can tell you is that the regional carriers, as Mr. Milton said, are currently going to spend 12 million dollars over four years. That is an exact, known figure. Air Canada's budget for language teaching and services is over one and a half million dollars.

• 1825

I am just talking about training because that was what your question was about, but there are all the other related expenses involved in serving the public in other languages. Bilingualism at Air Canada goes beyond training.

Mr. Trottier told you that the cost of bilingualism was nine million dollars at Air Canada. He was not including regional carriers. When Mr. Trottier left Air Canada, the regional carriers were not subject to the act. So, the nine...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Would you please focus your answer on...

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Okay. So the nine million dollars Mr. Trottier referred to...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau will get his turn.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: ...represented the entire cost of language services. Training for the regional carriers definitely costs 12 million dollars.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: This is my allotted time. If Mr. Sauvageau intervenes during that time, I hope the chairman will take that into account.

If you have the figures, could you send them to me and tell me what per cent of your overall budget is earmarked for language training? Can that be done?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Would you like the per cent of Air Canada's overall budget that goes to training or the per cent of Air Canada's training budget that goes to language training?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I forgot to ask you...

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: With respect to training?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Excuse me. The framework for the implementation of the Official Languages Act, the regulations you have, needs, in my view—and I must admit, I have spent some time studying the problem—to be updated, strengthened and perhaps better managed.

You said earlier, Mr. Milton, if I am not mistaken, that you intended to issue or publish an action plan, which I imagine will include a component entitled “action plan implementation framework”. When might we get a copy of that action plan to consult as an official Air Canada document?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: The action plan may be ready before next spring, sometime this winter. There have already been at least two working sessions to draft this action plan. Taking into account the Christmas holidays, I would say early next spring, around March.

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

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Okay.

Air Canada has a reputation among the general public—and I do not mean to criticize you by any means—as an airline that occasionally... Perhaps Mr. Milton is right. You have 30 million passengers, and 190 or 197 complaints are perhaps not a big deal. However, I have been affected. Mr. Dion and Mr. Godin have been affected. There are people here on this committee who have been directly affected, either by the indifference of one of your employees or by a policy that is misunderstood by people serving the public. I am still talking about language of service.

Can you tell me whether there are disciplinary measures that enable Air Canada to deal with a complaint by Mr. Godin, Mr. Gauthier, Mr. Sauvageau or whomever else, such that action is taken to correct a person's misconduct or possible misunderstanding of his or her job? Do you follow?

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: Perhaps on that one, Ted or Sue, you'd like to answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Ted D'Arcy (Vice-President, Inflight Service, Air Canada): Senator, the answer is that we definitely do deal with all of the complaints we get about Inflight Service. Those complaints do not automatically trigger disciplinary measures. Each case is judged on the merits. First, we check to see whether the policy was properly understood, whether the in-charge flight attendant properly briefed the crew. We check whether the deficiency of service in the official language was due to poor personal planning, which is very rare, but can happen.

• 1830

However, if the investigation leads to a finding of individual performance inadequacy, we take measures that may be disciplinary. It may start with a letter of reprimand, followed by potential suspension or discharge, the person's performance record must be taken into account. If it is a first mistake, it does not necessarily lead to discipline. However, there is appropriate follow-up that can quickly lead to disciplinary action.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

A voice: —

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No. We may come back to that, but I can not—

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: If I could interrupt for one second, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to apologize to the senator if he did have a bad experience with us.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Milton, I would like to thank you and your associates for accepting our invitation to meet with us at last.

When you say that with 30 million passengers and only 137 complaints, the ratio is low, I think the problem is that you are forgetting that not all of those 30 million passengers are francophones. Furthermore, the 137 language complaints you have received do not represent one hundred per cent of the service deficiencies. I think you have to put all those figures in perspective.

Mrs. Perreault-Ieraci, on may 15, 2001, in your testimony, you told us:

—Air Canada has always assigned bilingual flight attendants to all its flights, whether or not [...] there was a 5 per cent demand.

I stress the word “always”. Mr. Milton, you said the same thing earlier.

I am not the Commissioner of Official Languages and do not officially receive complaints. However, just because I told some people you were going to be a witness here, I wound up with three complaints to convey to you. The first is about yesterday. At 6:15 on a December morning, we were told, at the Ottawa Airport, on the Ottawa-Toronto flight, there was bilingual service on the flight—service in English and Spanish.

On November 25, from Buenos Aires to Toronto, the Inflight Service was in English only.

The most serious complaint, I think, has to do with what happened on November 19. Ms. Ieraci was informed about this by the complainant, Ms. Lorange. During the flight, this lady experienced diabetic systems. She had called prior to departure to warn that she was diabetic and francophone. She received no service in the air or on the ground. This happened November 19, between Edmonton and Ottawa. And the Ottawa Airport is, in theory, one of the airports that has to provide services in both official languages.

I think one of the problems is that you say there are none. If you do not see the problem, you will have a hard time finding a solution, since in your eyes, there is no problem.

What I would like to hear you say is what you said earlier about the 180-day plan; were he here, Senator Rivest would congratulate you on your good public relations, like he did Ms. Perreault-Ieraci. I would like you to tell us in your own words what practical steps you plan to take to find solutions to the recurring problem of Air Canada's disregard for the Official Languages Act. We are not the only ones to have observed this; the Commissioner of Official Languages has raised it too.

Let me give you an idea of what I expect by way of answer. I have been waiting for six months for an answer from Ms. Perreault-Ieraci, who said she would get back to me on the following point. We had discussed a leaflet that would be made available to passengers, in every seat pocket, not just in the pilot's glove box, but in the pocket of every seat back. On one side, it would set out Air Canada's obligations, and on the other, there would be a passenger comment form. I was told you would get back to us on that. It should be relatively straightforward. And yet here we are six months later, still waiting for an answer. I would like first to hear what you have to say about that.

Secondly, could you replace the little triangles with little people inside them saying that you provide bilingual services with huge signs announcing that you are required to comply with the Official Languages Act in airports and wherever Air Canada has facilities? That way, clients, passengers and employees would always have in mind your obligation to comply with the Official Languages Act.

On board the aircraft, in your video messages about how and when to buckle up—and I would like to see this in your action plan—you could mention that you are required to comply with the Official Languages Act throughout, not just during the routine announcements, but at all times, on board the aircraft, in the service and emergency situations too.

My last suggestion is based on the same principle. I thought your 180-day action plan, with a report on customer service after so many days, was good. If your francophone clientele is so important to you, could you set up the same kind of 180- or 360-day action plan—six months or one year being a reasonable timeframe, not, as was suggested to me earlier, 7,200 days, or 20 years—to convey to parliamentarians, users, the Commissioner of Official Languages and people in general that you are serious about solving the problem once and for all? That is what I would like to hear from you, Mr. Milton. Will you say it?

• 1835

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: There are a couple of things. Obviously, for these particular flights we'll look into the circumstances and make a determination. I'm sure Ted will do that.

As to the real question of what do we intend to do about it, obviously I'd be delighted to take away any suggestions you have. I can say that we will keep working at getting the number of issues down towards zero, but given the complexity of what is involved with running an airline and given the complexity of our union agreements, with specific provisions related to seniority and moving people around, it will remain a complicated exercise. However, my commitment is that we will continue to endeavour to do better and better as we go forward.

Clearly, a part of this is a game plan, and it must be a game plan with the intent to get there not, as you say, over 7,200 days. If we could get there tomorrow, we would, but it will require continued work.

[Translation]

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Mr. Sauvageau, the action plan Senator Gauthier just referred to is precisely what we are doing. I am not saying we are going to fix everything in 180 days, but Mr. Milton's 180-day action plan is there to identify those problems we already know we have—I do not believe we have ever hidden the fact that we had problems—and to identify new problems, because the merger with Canadian has caused us new problems. We also have to deal with the problem of inflexible collective agreement provisions dealing with personnel assignment. So the action plan due next March is going to cover the problems, both old and new, and the solutions we plan to implement to solve them, complete with dates and responsibility assignments, of course. It will be a proper action plan.

Let's come back to the questions you asked me regarding the poll you asked me to carry out last spring. I think I committed myself to revisiting the issue with Ted, since he is responsible for how official bilingualism is applied on the airplane.

Thirty million passengers—

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I apologize for interrupting you, but it was not a poll. I was making a comparison—I can reread what you said—with VIA Rail. In each VIA Rail car, passengers can find forms in little wall baskets. These forms are not hidden away with the engineer somewhere. Any passenger may take one and fill it out.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: All right.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I was not talking about a poll.

Why do you waste money conducting polls if you do not take into account the 5% where you provide bilingual service? I don't understand why a company would invest in polls, whether there is 5% or not, and nevertheless claim it is providing that service everywhere, even if there is no 5%. Are you trying to convince yourselves of your virtue?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: No. We are forced to do so under the regulations. Whether we decide to provide the service on our planes or not is irrelevant because under Treasury Board regulations, we are obliged to conduct that poll. We acted proactively in that regard during the integration process of the regional carriers. That was under Bill C-26. We are not trying to justify ourselves; it's the law. That's why we did it.

So, with regard to your suggestion, 30 million passengers correspond to 30 million forms. If we had produced four copies of each form, as you requested, it would have cost a fortune and been extremely difficult to manage. Which leads me to my poll. We collectively decided within the company to regularly ask people questions on an ongoing basis. The idea was not to do a two-month poll once and for all. We began last summer. Each month, we asked several hundred passengers four questions on official languages. We asked them if, when they arrived at the airport, they could choose to be served in French and whether the airport announcements were made in French. Then we asked them the same questions about the flight. We asked them whether the flight announcements were made in the language of their choice and if the flight attendant was also in a position to serve them in the language of their choice.

• 1840

This is the alternative solution we came up with and I hope that it will help us better understand the situation without having to process 30 million forms available in airplane pouches.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Will this poll be made public? Can we receive a copy?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): In a nutshell, this is the question: will the results of this poll be made public?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: They have not been made public yet. However, I can tell you that we did a full assessment of bilingual services in October and that every client was satisfied with the service provided in airports and that between 90 and 100% of clients were satisfied with the inflight service. The respondents for this poll were Air Canada passengers and regional carrier passengers.

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

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Milton, your statement was extremely informative and very interesting. There was some very reassuring stuff in there. Still, I worry. I worry particularly at a time like this. Air Canada and the whole airline industry was already trying to juggle with very difficult circumstances before September, and we all have some idea of how much more complex things have been not just for you but for the whole company since then.

When that kind of thing comes along—and the problems aren't going to be solved tomorrow morning, they're going to be with you for a while—the tendency in any organization is for the people who are actually out there doing the work to basically concentrate on what they have to do for immediate survival. They say, well, those frill things would be nice, but I'll think about them tomorrow, next month, or maybe next year.

In that kind of context... bearing in mind, as you have heard, that everybody around this table can give you stories—not a story, but stories—of problems with language in Air Canada. We're not making it up. I just wonder whether you have any system in place to ensure that as people do their daily work, they know and take with them at all times the fact that language matters.

It can start right at the top. I assume your vice-presidents have objectives they are supposed to meet in some form. Maybe they're not even called objectives, but they have plans they're supposed to fulfill and goals they're supposed to meet. Is improving the degree of bilingual service one of those for them? If it isn't, shouldn't it be?

Mr. Robert Milton: First of all, you're right. There has been tremendous pressure over the last two years as we've integrated Canadian and over the last year with rising fuel prices, the slowing economy, and then the horrific events of September 11. At the executive committee level it is absolutely true that there is discussion of this subject and recognition of its importance. In terms of the day-to-day handling of it, Sue, who heads up people at Air Canada, clearly is very actively involved. Maybe I can let her comment on the focus we have.

One of the interesting but unfortunate things that has happened post-September 11 is that we, much as most of the North American industry, have had to try to get about 20% of our cost out. At this stage the U.S. airline industry has laid off 100,000 workers since September 11. We're aiming to get 20% of the cost out. We're mitigating a lot of the layoffs we originally thought we would have to complete.

• 1845

However, in letting a lot of customer service employees go, we were obliged to release the new, most junior hires we had brought in by the thousands, people who were all bilingual, because we operate in a seniority-based system. This adds even more complexity to making sure that we fulfil all these obligations.

But absolutely, from the highest level of the organization, my seat, there is an absolute sincerity in getting ourselves—

Senator Joan Fraser: I'm not disputing that, sir. I think that's been made plain. I'm just wondering how that gets translated into operations.

Now, this is actually a question for you, because you're the leader of the organization. For all the people who report to you—and not just Madame Perreault-Ieraci, who, God knows, performs a huge task—do you say, this is part of what I want you to do this quarter, this half, or this year?

Mr. Robert Milton: Absolutely and categorically. This is a key piece of what we are about, and I say—and our people, vice-presidents and below, know—that this is a cornerstone of what Air Canada's about.

Senator Joan Fraser: Do you set goals for them?

Mr. Robert Milton: Absolutely. There is the objective. The key objective is always safety, and I'm sure everybody around here would respect that. It is safety, number one, that is the absolute obligation we strive to fulfill.

From my standpoint, there are also commercial benefits. For example, Air Canada is the only airline in the world able to offer people service in French from all of France—a very significant population—on the 700 flights we operate into the United States a day. If you want to get to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, or Nashville, if you want to get to Charlotte, or if you want to get to St. Louis or Kansas City, there is one airline in the world that can get 60 million people in France to any one of those secondary cities in the U.S. No other has foreign airline service in French. So I look at this as a real commercial advantage over and above our requirement to fulfil the obligation under the act. This is a unique opportunity we have and one we use.

Again, I can't say it any more clearly, but maybe one of my immediate reports can talk about how seriously I and the group look at this.

Ms. Sue Welscheid (Vice-President, People, Air Canada): Certainly in times of difficulty and when things are being downsized, one would image that the translation group would suffer the same fate. That group has been the only employee group within Air Canada that has actually grown in the last three months. As we went through the crisis of September 11 and we had so many security directives to make available to every single one of our employee groups who were impacted by what happened, particularly the flight attendants and the pilots, we had to add capacity to our translation department.

Actually, for the first time ever we've added a night shift, which we don't think we will ever be able to disband. In that respect, I think we have taken extraordinary measures to make sure that the people who need critical information in French will get it at the same time as those who get the English information.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Do you have a final short question?

Senator Joan Fraser: So there are standing orders and guiding principles but no specific numeric goals or objectives or anything like that?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: If I can give the example of one goal—it would be up to Ted to talk about it because Ted has been responsible for linguistic objectives for in-flight services for over 30 years now, from a director's position to a vice-president's position. Ted is the only one in the company who can authorize giving a job to somebody who's not bilingual, and he will do that only—and I'm sorry, Ted, I should let you talk—if the market has really dried up and there's nobody else who would like a bilingual job at Air Canada.

I'm sorry; maybe you can go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Ted D'Arcy: It was well done, Ms. Perreault-Ieraci.

Madam Senator, as Miss Welscheid mentioned, I have been working in this area for a very long time and I take the issue very seriously as it applies to Air Canada. When the senator provided a few examples a little earlier, I realized that we have come a long way since I began in 1974.

• 1850

I would like to begin by saying that in my view, Mr. Milton's objective is simple, it's 100%. There is no authority which would allow me not to respect our obligations in 1%, 2% or 3% of cases.

But given the recent integration of Air Canada with Canadian, we still obviously have two separate groups of employees. The reason we cannot increase the language capacity of our employees is that the integration of seniority lists has not yet taken place. But the good news is that the ruling on the integration formula was made last week. We therefore expect both groups to be completely integrated soon, but we are not quite there just yet.

I do not want to prejudge the three examples Mr. Sauvageau brought to our attention, but I would like them to conduct a follow-up, including the specific flights and dates, because this is a very serious matter. It is quite possible that the staff still providing service on our flights, including Canadian crews, still do not have the same percentage of bilingual personnel. Once integration takes place, we will be in an even better situation.

The law is clear. The company's policy is very clear and all our objectives, policies and planning procedures are as well. For instance, Ms. Perreault-Ieraci mentioned that on every Air Canada flight—I am not referring to the integration with Canadian, which will be completed soon, but specifically to Air Canada—on all our flights, including international ones and those just mentioned by Mr. Sauvageau, there are, in principle, one, two or three bilingual positions. Air Canada's collective agreement is one of the few to designate a certain number of inflight positions as being bilingual. In terms of planning, this issue comes up every month. Our objective is 100%. There is no compromise.

Now, when programs are offered to our employees, sometimes events take place in the air transportation industry.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would ask you to conclude so that other members of the committee may ask questions.

Mr. Ted D'Arcy: Fine. I make the point to illustrate that each day there are unforeseen circumstances in this business, which sometimes force us to call in reserve personnel. They are not always bilingual. I have no problem admitting that, but I truly believe that we have a policy and procedures in place for every flight and our objective, as I see it, is to aim for nothing less than 100%.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): In that regard, I am tempted to ask my own questions, but I will not do so before giving the floor to my colleague Mr. Godin. I will wait.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I would like to begin by welcoming you to the committee. We have been waiting for you for a long time. You must respect the collective agreement, isn't that so?

A voice: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The Air Canada Pilots Association told us that a collective agreement was signed two years ago and that francophone employees never receive a copy in French, and that only a single copy was in the hands of the union. Air Canada's employees did not even receive the French version of the collective agreement.

Ms. Sue Welscheid: I will reply.

In fact, negotiations were conducted in English because the union presidents on all sides were unilingual anglophones. That's why negotiations take place in English only and when the final document is ready, the union must approve the French version. The problem is that we never received union approval for the French version. As soon as we receive it, the French version will be printed.

Mr. Yvon Godin: But francophones have been waiting for two years...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I apologize for interrupting.

Ms. Welscheid, can you prove this? The committee was told the exact opposite by three union reps. So, if you could prove it, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Ms. Sue Welscheid: That would not be a problem.

Mr. Yvon Godin: In fact, we were told the opposite, and this has been going on for two years. If the union did not do it, I feel that something should be done, because under the collective agreement, people...

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: Can I just say that in my estimation, based on everything I'm aware of, some of the representations made by the unions in this particular area are wildly inaccurate. We would look forward to providing you with the facts, which speak to our ability, as Sue has said, to prepare the contracts in both languages, this despite, I think, the CAW's representation that there's no contract in French. In fact, it is available in French.

• 1855

[Translation]

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Mr. Fane told you that he is had never seen an English CAW collective agreement, but in fact it is produced in both languages at exactly the same time.

Mr. Yvon Godin: We were told that the collective agreement was a copy like this one and that there were never any others made for the employees. I am referring to the employees, not to the union.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Yes, so am I.

Mr. Yvon Godin: We were told that employees never received a copy of the collective agreement. I don't want to spend my five minutes discussing this issue, but they told us that you did not say the same thing the last time...

[Editor's Note: Technical Difficulties]

...we will hear from both sides.

In the November 2001 issue of your magazine Horizons—you probably are aware of this—there is a description of your new airline, Tango, as well as an announcement regarding the creation of a new low-cost carrier which would be based out West. The side bar indicates that it would be a partially-owned subsidiary which will not be subject to Parts V and VI of the Official Languages Act. It also says that employees will come from the outside: “Air Canada”, “Tango”, “Air Canada employees” and “low-cost, western-based carrier”, “outside employees”.

But you have already signed an agreement with your pilots which states that the latter will be hired. Are we not witnessing the progressive disengagement of Air Canada in terms of its official language obligations under Parts V and VI with regard to equitable participation? Furthermore, can we not also conclude that this same subsidiary, or another entirely new one, will not provide flights in central or eastern Canada?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: I am not sure I understand the question, but I can tell you that the new low-cost carrier will be obliged to hire personnel which can provide service in both official languages.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That was not my question.

As representatives of Air Canada, and under the Official Languages Act, do you feel you must abide by the Official Languages Act, yes or no?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Yes.

Ms. Sue Welscheid: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Will that also be the case of the new western-based subsidiary?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Yes. It's a wholly-owned subsidiary of Air Canada, and under Bill C-26, which was enacted in July 2000, wholly-owned subsidiaries, through Air Canada, the parent firm, also fall under the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You said a little earlier that you had received 137 complaints, and that it was not a huge number. How many of those complaints were made by anglophones?

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: Do you have that fact there?

[Translation]

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: What we have...

Mr. Yvon Godin: I just want to know what the number is.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: I do not think that there have been complaints about there being no service in English. However, we have had some complaints from anglophones who are not at all happy about hearing French.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Is that the reason, is Air Canada not so good about official languages because there have been complaints made by people who do not like to hear French spoken?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: No, no. That has no bearing on the issue.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Personally, I have been disappointed. In all honesty, I have been disappointed. I do not know who is giving the orders. I am sure that Mr. Milton does not have time to look after everything. I took the plane to go from Ottawa to New Brunswick. I think that I have made so many complaints that now I have to travel on an 18-passenger Beechcraft in order to get to Bathurst. I hope that that is not the reason why I have been put on this plane.

I took the plane here, in Ottawa, and when I got to the counter, everything was in English only. In my case, that's okay, I can speak English. But I was wondering if the francophone who comes here, to Ottawa, and waits in line for about an hour before getting to the counter where he is greeted by someone in English only when he wants to be served in French, has to go back in line? How does he get service? And that is only one situation.

In another example, I took the plane from Ottawa to Montreal. I think that our 5% are found there. The woman spoke only English, and when I arrived in Montreal, she told us, in English, to pickup our baggage at the sky check. The poor francophones left all their baggage there.

Then, I took another plane from Montreal to London. I think that we could say that 5% of Montreal's population is francophone. Once again, everything was in English. And this occurred in recent months.

I sent a complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages. You can say what you like, but I thought that Regional and Air Canada were both subject to the legislation since July 2000. Here, in Ottawa, it's flagrant. Honestly, I think that you are doing this on purpose to show us how you can break the law.

• 1900

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Do you wish to respond?

[English]

Mr. Milton.

Mr. Robert Milton: Obviously, a story like that is unfortunate and unacceptable. Ted D'Arcy has been at Air Canada many years. One of the things that he's repeatedly taught me is to find out the facts. If there are specific instances when this has occurred, I'd be happy to follow up and attempt to deal with it, because it's not about the way we operate.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Do I still have time left?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, but we will be tolerant if you have a brief question.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, that's all right. Could I ask a question later on?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Fine. Thank you, Mr. Godin. We will come back to you, yes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Fine.

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

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Good afternoon, Mr. Milton.

This morning, I was talking to Senator Bacon about your appearance today. She was very surprised. She told us not to be too hard on you.

Six months ago, we met Ms. Perreault and her team. We really had a great presentation. We loved it. Of course, we had an opportunity to give our opinions. A short while later, we heard from a witness who had done a study on the services provided by Air Canada. As we know, two companies with unionized employees were merged. Obviously, it is not easy to take harsh measures to get employees to speak French. When somebody does not want to do this, they do not want to do it. With unionized employees, it's not easy.

I asked the witness who had done the study the following question. Mr. Godin found the answer harsh. I asked the witness how many years he thought Air Canada would need in order to meet the standards? He replied that it would take 15 years. Everybody was taken aback.

As you know, Mr. Milton, it is always the president who decides on the philosophy of an organization, if he is running it properly. We know that you have been running Air Canada well despite the difficult times. My question is as follows: Could you do something spectacular and turn our last witness, who told us that this would not happen for 15 years, into a liar? I would like to hear your reaction.

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: As I mentioned earlier, our task has been complicated by the events of September 11 and the fact that we've had to let go a lot of the new bilingual employees who we brought in and who would have helped us accelerate the program. Obviously, I hope the economy recovers and we can bring these people back sooner rather than later, which will help us again.

As I think Ted mentioned, for obvious transitional reasons, as we move the two airlines into one, for a very long time the two groups have been kept operationally separate. We're now getting to the final stages of bringing it into one group, which will help us in many cases in the Canadian Airlines operation get the higher proportion of Air Canada bilingual speakers onto those aircraft to help really redress the balance. This will help us move forward considerably.

When the acquisition of Canadian occurred, we committed to a certain timeline. Obviously, as I said, because of September 11 this is more complicated. But it is still our intention and my plan to get us there quickly, and definitely not in 15 years.

Sue, I don't know if you want to add to that.

[Translation]

Ms. Sue Welscheid: Yes.

A few days ago, we came to an agreement with the CAW employees on reduced work-week programs or job sharing or even programs that would unable employees to leave a little bit earlier than they had thought. As result of this program, we are hopeful that many of the unilingual employees from Canadian Airlines will want to leave us. If this happens, we could keep the young bilingual employees that we have hired over the past five years.

This also applies to many of the collective agreements. We have been able to come up with some quite attractive mitigation programs and I think that we will see a change.

Moreover, I must say that at Air Canada, it is impossible to force an employee to take language training. However, we do have hundreds of employees who are taking advance of French language programs every day. These employees represent, currently, nearly 5% of the total. Consequently, I think that we are making marvellous progress.

• 1905

Mr. Gérard Binet: I go back to my question, Mr. Milton. I am not asking you to take any harsh measures, but to do something spectacular. When we talk about doing something spectacular, we don't mean decisions that are made sitting in an office with a board of directors. Decisions are made there, of course, but I am talking about announcing a philosophy that Air Canada could adopt in the years to come, which would be accompanied by a communication program so that the message would be conveyed to the population including, unavoidably, Air Canada employees. Once the population was aware of it... There was talk about the small envelope behind the seat, but in my opinion, whether you want this or not, the follow-up will be easier, and it won't take 15 years to get there. In my opinion, Mr. Milton, the president needs to take some action. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are you thinking about encouraging him to learn French, Mr. Binet; is that it?

[English]

Mr. Milton, would you care to respond?

Mr. Robert Milton: Over the last few years I've scheduled full immersion French courses several times, but every time I get close something horrible happens, not the least of which was September 11. So I'm now just going to surprise the French teacher by showing up, because it has invariably led to bad news up to now.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Binet, are you finished?

Mr. Gérard Binet: I am waiting for something spectacular from Mr. Milton, and I am waiting for him to invite me when this takes place.

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: We'll work to be spectacular.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Comeau, may I ask a quick question along the same lines?

[English]

Mr. Milton, we recently had representatives here from three of the major unions that work within Air Canada. I asked them specifically, “In the case of a conflict between the Official Languages Act responsibilities, which Air Canada has, and the application of a collective agreement, which should prevail?” Their answer was quite clear and categoric—the Official Languages Act.

So I'll ask you the same question, and I suspect I'll get the same answer. That's my first thing.

Mr. Robert Milton: You will get the same answer. I discussed this with the commissioner, because historically it has not taken precedence. What has taken precedence are the contractual obligations to the unions, in every event. Perhaps this is one thing on which this body could provide added definition, because it would make our lives a lot easier if there were that definition.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Those three unions indicated their belief—the machinists were not there—that quite clearly the Official Languages Act prevails. If indeed there is a conflict, as I seem to perceive here in the reduction of your staff, there's a seniority element at play here. I've heard that the younger ones, who tend to perhaps be more bilingual, are the ones let go first. Isn't this a conflict between the responsibilities that the act places on Air Canada and the collective agreements?

Mr. Robert Milton: I think there's definitely conflict. Clearly now, knowing that these same unions would have been here making representations to the effect that these contracts were not available in French, which is patently incorrect, I would also say that historically their approach would not be that official languages would take precedence over the contracts they had negotiated.

But if you'd like Sue or someone to expand on that—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No. I'm just trying to come to grips with this.

If there is a conflict, who should the arbiter be, if not Air Canada?

Mr. Robert Milton: We talked about this with the commissioner, as I mentioned, and we agreed that our legal teams would begin to try to attack this question, to make a determination on the right answer. So we're actively working on that with the commissioner.

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

Mr. Donolo.

Mr. Peter Donolo (Senior Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Government Relations, Air Canada): On that as well, these are obviously legislative matters, implicitly. It would certainly seem to me that a parliamentary committee would have a lot of weight in their view on this subject.

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

[Translation]

Senator Comeau.

Senator Gérald J. Comeau (Nova Scotia, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will not be long. I have only a few questions to ask.

I would like to go back to the issue of the surveys that you conducted for particular markets. What markets did you target?

• 1910

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: I think that you are talking about the survey we conducted in the spring and in the summer to assess the demand.

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: I am talking about the level of satisfaction.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Oh? The level of satisfaction.

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: Yes.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: This is done on a random basis. We have names. We survey people in the eastern part of the country, in the center or in the west.

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: That could happen in British Columbia.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Yes.

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: Fine.

I have a second question. I would like to go back to the issue of your obligations under the act. In answer to Mr. Mill's question, you said 5% “where numbers warrant”. Where are the airports that Air Canada views as having this “where numbers warrant” proviso?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Air Canada lands at 11 airports that are deemed to be airports with significant demand. It is the government and not Air Canada that determine that. This was not done on the basis of Air Canada's surveys, this was the government that made a decision about these 11 airports. Will you forgive me if I forget one?

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: No, no. Let us restrict ourselves to the Atlantic region, for instance.

Mr. Peter Donolo: May I say something as well, Michelle?

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: Yes.

Mr. Peter Donolo: At these 11 airports, it is not just Air Canada that is obliged to serve the public in both languages. The government obliges all airlines that use these airports to provide services in both languages, I believe. Is that not correct?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Yes, that is right. All of the tenants of these airports, both companies...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): For ground services.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: For ground services, yes. In these airports, everybody should be able to serve you in both languages, including airlines and restaurants.

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: Is Halifax on this list?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Yes.

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: And Charlottetown? Charlottetown is not on the list.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: No, Moncton is.

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: Moncton is on this list.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Yes.

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: And what about Corner Brook and St. John's?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: No.

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: So that gives me the feeling that where the number of francophones warrant it, is where it is deemed sufficient or viable, to use the word “viable”, which is used in other contexts.

Let's say that in these communities, the number of francophones is not large enough to provide services in French. However, in my opinion, it may be in these regions, in Charlottetown, Corner Brook, and a few others, that we should be offering more service in French because these are communities where francophones are being assimilated.

Francophones are not being assimilated in Quebec. However, they are in Charlottetown, Corner Brook and in other regions around Halifax.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: I can tell you that Air Canada does have bilingual personnel in Charlottetown, even though the legislation does not oblige us to do so.

[English]

Do we serve Corner Brook?

[Translation]

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: Let's talk about St. John's instead.

[English]

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: You mean St. John's, Newfoundland, right? For us it's a little difficult.

[Translation]

I think that this truly is a matter for Treasury Board. It is the government that decided which airports were to be on the list and I do not believe that we provide service to Corner Brook.

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: Mr. Milton said that, as the president of Air Canada, he wanted to go beyond that, if I understood correctly. Perhaps I misunderstood.

[English]

I was under the impression that you said you wanted to go above and beyond what you were legally obligated to.

[Translation]

A few of these communities, particularly the ones where there is a high level of assimilation, are perhaps communities where we should be making special efforts, special efforts to exceed Treasury Board requirements, because we have seen that Treasury Board has not always been as sympathetic to these communities as we would have liked.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: I might make a commitment to you, Senator.

These regions are served primarily by our regional carriers, Air Nova.

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: Yes.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: I will make a commitment to you that I will convey the concerns that you have expressed today to Air Nova and determine, with them, which airports they serve where we might be able to make a special effort. All right?

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: Yes. All right.

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: We do serve Corner Brook.

Senator Gérard Comeau: You do? I thought so.

[Translation]

I may have one final question, Mr. Chairman. It will be the last one.

Will the action plan that you are preparing with the Commissioner of Official Languages be finished by March?

• 1915

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Yes, that's right. It is only the holiday period that is delaying us.

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: Concerning this plan, are you working in cooperation with the commissioner with respect to the complaints concerning Air Canada directly or are you trying to determine who will look after complaints?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: The memorandum of understanding that Mr. Milton signed with the commissioner two weeks ago details the terms and conditions of the complaints and cooperation process with the Commissioner of Official Languages. Moreover, much of this memorandum pertains to the cooperative work on complaints. This is the memorandum of understanding that Mr. Milton signed.

What is interesting about this memorandum is that the TCA/CAW union in the airports also signed this memorandum, making a commitment—and this is a first—to assist Air Canada in finding solutions to the problems in the airports. This represents a major step forward because, up until now, no union has made any commitment to help us resolve the problem in the airports.

Indeed, we have—and this may interest you—six months to work together before going back to the commissioner to report the results of our six months of work with the unions. That should resolve a large portion of the problems because our problem pertains to flexibility, flexibility in the assignment given in our airports.

Senator Gérald J. Comeau: Thank you, Ms. Perreault-Ieraci. Thank you for appearing here this evening. I would also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Milton, again on behalf of the committee, thank you for coming. I know the committee has been anxious to have you appear before us since we issued the first interim report on bilingual services in June. Then, of course, with the tragic events of the September 11 intervening, we really appreciate you being the first to appear before our committee. Thank you.

I want to talk about the unions, the collective agreements, and the union agreements. I want to follow up on a number of things that have been said here this evening.

Am I correct, Madam Perreault-Ieraci, that you said you have just signed a memorandum of agreement with the unions, to deal with the problems of bilingualism in the airports?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: It's a three-party agreement among the Commissioner of Official Languages, Air Canada, and the CAW union. The three of us signed this protocol of agreement, which deals mainly with the complaints. It doesn't add much more to what Air Canada is already doing, but it gives this obligation to the union to sit down with us and discuss the problems.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay. Maybe I can just go through a number of the comments I've heard here. First is a question that's related to what you just said. Does that amend the collective agreement in any way, or is this voluntary? Is there any consideration for getting the memorandum of agreement?

One of the things you said, Mr. Milton, in your opening statement as well was that no one should lose their job. While nobody wants to see anyone lose their job, what kind of message is that sending out, when Senator Gauthier asks you what proceedings are taken if your employees don't comply, or if there is an incident on a flight and you find their behaviour is not acceptable, when do you define behaviour as being acceptable?

One of our colleagues, Senator Hervieux-Payette, told us about being on a plane where somebody said “I don't care about this official language, French. What difference does it make to me?” I'm not asking you to follow that up, but if that's the attitude among the employees, if you make a statement that no one will lose their job under any circumstances... I was surprised to hear that the presidents of the unions are unilingual.

Also, Madam Welscheid said it is impossible to force an employee to take language training. Why is it impossible if it's not part of the collective agreement? If there are no enforcement proceedings or any kind of... I can't think of the word. If you can't punish them, if employees can do whatever they want and that's the message that's being sent, no matter what—

Mr. Robert Milton: Can I interrupt for one second?

• 1920

One thing I would like to clarify is that I would look at a situation entirely differently if the employee is bilingual and speaks French and refuses. From a disciplinary standpoint, I consider that entirely different, and that employee will be firmly dealt with.

The challenges we deal with include a very big population of former Canadian employees and many Air Canada employees who are unilingual, trying to teach them in French, plus the complexities we discussed. For years now we've been hiring bilingual employees to improve the performance, and we lost a lot of them after September 11.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: The other thing that Mr. Donolo said was to ask the committee for guidance.

Again, if you look at Bill C-26, it is clear what Air Canada's requirements are. How can the union continue to ignore the requirements? What clearer message do we need to send here? With respect to the Canadian airline employees, at the time of the merger it was made clear that you would have to be made subject to the Official Languages Act.

Did no one, at any time, look at the collective agreements or the union agreements as to how this would be incorporated? Is it not a condition of employment that you must take training? What happens if you refuse? What happens if you can't? Do you still just stick those people in Ottawa? What do the collective agreements address, and if they don't address that, why not? What further direction do you need to make the collective agreements address these issues as a priority?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: If I can give the example of the Canadian Human Rights Act, that provides for the employer to accommodate, but also, the jurisprudence going with that legislation provides for the union to accommodate so that the company can deliver their obligations. This is something like that, which we would also need so that it's clear in the legislation that the unions have the duty to accommodate, to help us.

We now have that with CAW. We negotiated this protocol of agreement, and CAW will sit down with us and help. Obviously, chances are, we're going to find solutions in assigning people the way we need to assign them so that they deliver the service. It's a matter of flexibility.

I can assure you that we have enough people in the airports to deliver service. We need to be able to sit them where we need them to sit when they are bilingual. Right now the seniority principle prevails. The employee can bid for whatever positions they want. If they're senior enough, they're going to get it. It's not a matter of language, it's a matter of seniority.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It's a matter of collective agreements.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: It's a matter of collective agreements. This is a sacrosanct principle.

Mr. Robert Milton: For us, it would be highly useful to be able to put them precisely where we need them, from a language capability standpoint. So to the extent that you're able to provide greater clarity, that would be terrific.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I have to remind you, the three representatives—and that particular union was represented here—categorically stated that in the case of a conflict, the Official Languages Act prevailed.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: We were thrilled to hear that.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: On a Point of Order, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: With respect to what you have just said, we have to take a look at the blues because, if I remember correctly, we said that people had to be given the opportunity to receive training. If they refused the training, that was when the legislation might be used.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): All right.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It was a matter of training. We said that Air Canada was under an obligation to train its employees, provide them with some type of training.

Ms. Sue Welscheid: Language training is part of the collective agreement.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would suggest that you read the blues for this meeting.

Ms. Sue Welscheid: Absolutely.

Mr. Yvon Godin: We would not speak for them.

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: Perhaps one thing that can come away from this evening is, in any event, that great clarity from you would be very useful.

[Translation]

Mr. Ted D'Arcy: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add something.

I have a lot of experience with this type of situation. It is without a doubt a very, very difficult situation. I read the transcript of the testimony given by the three individuals speaking on behalf of the union. We are starting to negotiate a collective agreement and this question is definitely still on the company's agenda. However, as far as they are concerned, it really is a question of seniority.

• 1925

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Your final question, Madam Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes. This is just a clarification. Ms. Perreault-Ieraci, again, help me with the protocol. You're lauding this protocol agreement that has been signed with the CAW, but how does the protocol...

Is it an amendment to the collective agreement? Does it take precedence? Is it voluntary? What was the consideration? What is the effect at law of this protocol agreement?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: It doesn't amend the collective agreement. It is a commitment from the CAW's highest executives to help us find solutions.

Mr. Robert Milton: At this stage, it's really about commencing a dialogue to come to—

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: It's about time they accept dialogue with us.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orleans, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Your comments were very welcome. I thought the attitude you projected was very good, very heartwarming. However, there were little comments here and there, by yourself and others, that made me a little nervous. One of them was “where numbers warrant”, for example, and then, on the municipalities or cities where there are airports, depending on numbers, “where they warrant” came into play. That makes me rather nervous.

I am sure that Canadians are proud of having a national airline owned by Canadians, as opposed to a national airline that is owned by a foreign entity, and I am sure that the Canadian airline named Air Canada is proud to be part of Canada.

Canada, as I believe in it, has two official languages, and two official languages is not something where, if you happen to have a big gang, you'll be recognized, and if you don't have a big gang, you're not recognized. You feel like a second-class citizen. You're trying to survive in a country. Should we francophones live in Quebec only?

If we look at the statistics, there are French Canadians in the Yukon, in the Northwest Territories, in British Columbia; we're everywhere. But we're not necessarily in large numbers everywhere. When we travel, if we fly from one point to another in the west and these are designated “anglo” areas, as some of your colleagues in Montreal would say, you could have a flight full of francophones and they wouldn't be served because down below where they are going to land or come up from, the language is not recognized there. So it makes me nervous when you talk about “where numbers warrant”.

I've always said, don't do that. Don't count French Canadians, count the francophiles. Do not count the francophones, do not count the francophobes—or the anglophobes for that matter. In my mind, these people—the francophobes and the anglophobes—don't count and should not exist in Canada. But the anglophiles and the francophiles, they're the ones who count, and they're numerous. My riding is 35% francophone, but 95% francophile and over 80% bilingual people. Francophobes, there are some, maybe 2%; anglophobes, maybe 0.5%. But with those figures, it is more that the attitude you projected at the beginning was the right one, where you say that is what needs to be done.

I became extremely nervous when Madame Perreault-Ieraci talked about these comment cards in the pockets of les sièges d'avion and that she's not too sure about this, that they'd rather do some sondages here and there where they feel like having a survey.

When you go on a trip via Air Canada to Barbados or wherever, or Toronto, it doesn't matter where, where we live, there's always a card asking what we thought of their place and what we would recommend. Why is that Madame Perreault seems reluctant to have these cards put near the doggy bag on the flights? I don't understand that.

• 1930

I hope your action plan won't be “where numbers warrant” or where the law dictates, because then we become adversarial and we say “Ah, what they need is a law. You'll get a law.” You know, we'll all sit down and write it so it would really make you miserable as an administrator. But that's not the route that anyone wants to take, either you or ourselves.

Therefore, how do we provide these services in both official languages, across Canada, without looking at the stupidity of “where numbers warrant”—because that is kowtowing to the bigots, whether they be anglophones or francophones.

Mr. Robert Milton: First we have the underlying law, which we look to abide by, and then go beyond that. In an ideal state we'd have the absolute capacity everywhere, all the time. I think, though, as we discussed earlier, that given many of the constraints—the contraction that's occurring in the airline industry, the acquisition of Canadian Airlines and the many unilingual employees we've inherited—the desired state we would love to get to clearly takes time.

I believe we've been demonstrating a determination to get to a much improved state, but we have now, as of a few weeks ago, with September 11, had a very mighty setback. But as a group, as a team, as a company, as a CEO, we are committed to continuing moving forward with ever greater capacity to provide service in both languages of the country.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You keep coming back to September 11. Should I erase from my mind any thoughts that bilingualism, yes, in good times, but not in bad times, and because of September 11 we've got a problem?

Mr. Robert Milton: I don't want you to go away with that impression. All I'm saying is that because of this massive contraction in the industry, basically 20% of the workforce of the airline industry in North America have lost their jobs as a result. People are simply not flying, or not flying in anywhere near the numbers they were prior to September 11. As a result, we've taken a tremendous number of our employees out. Without exception, these were bilingual customer service employees who were brought in and now we've had to part with them. That is why I refer to September 11. It was a major setback in the progress we were making, and obviously it was an uncontrollable event.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Milton.

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We have about a half an hour left. Let's do a second round, which will be shorter this time. We will each have five minutes. I will restrict myself to five minutes, because there are a few people who would like to speak, including the two co-chairs.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: First of all, I would like to say something to Mr. D'Arcy, who wanted to know the number of the 6:15 a.m. flight, yesterday morning, between Ottawa and Toronto. I would say that it should be quite easy to trace because there was a surplus seat sale for 57 spots.

And now, for Ms. Ieraci—

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: I am sorry, what was the flight number?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It was at 6:15, yesterday morning—

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: There is not a flight 615. That's not the flight number.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Ms. Ieraci, you should not have too much difficulty tracking down the complaint; it begins with the words “Further to our telephone conversation”. So, the name of the person who called you, and it was flight 104 from Edmonton to Ottawa. As for the others, I will give them to you.

Mr. Ted D'Arcy: Mr. Sauvageau, was this on November 19?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, November 19. If you would like other numbers, I would be happy to provide them to you.

Mr. Milton, if I understood you correctly, the action plan that you want to develop, that will make liars out of all the former Air Canada presidents who have appeared here and disappointed us because nothing has changed, will be available in March. Is that what you are telling us? We will see the light in March? That is it?

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: I am sorry, the translation is taking a little time. Can you finish the translation?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You made us laugh.

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: If you want, Michelle, go ahead. The commitments of previous presidents and having been disappointed is the issue, I gather.

[Translation]

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: You are right, this memorandum of understanding is a tool we are developing in order to understand and identify properly the old problems—and we know them—the new problems, and the concrete solutions that we can apply to them.

• 1935

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have some good news for you. On May 15, I asked you why, if you feel that the Official Languages Act is important to you or to Air Canada, why you did not embark on an advertising campaign similar to the one I talked about earlier to state that, in 180 or 360 days, you were making a commitment to all your clients to serve them in both official languages, in such and such a region. You answered that this already existed in your plan, that it did not have to be rewritten. When I asked you to make it public, you also told me that it already was, that Treasury Board received it every year. Are you going to resubmit this updated plan, as you do annually, and present it to us as your action plan? Is that what you are trying to make us swallow?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: These are two different documents.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Every year, we submit an annual report to Treasury Board on everything that was done pertaining to official languages so that we can achieve some progress every year. I would encourage you to reread it, particularly the latest one. Numerous activities are noted in this report.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: When I asked you to prepare a concrete action plan involving pocket folders and all of that, you told me that this had already been done. Now you are saying that it will be done. You can see that we are at times a little skeptical, here in the committee, when you make these announcement that are a little bit political. They might be cute, but they do not mean anything.

You seem to be telling us that conducting surveys on board planes is something new. However, on May 15th, in answer to a question I had asked in order to find out whether there were, among other things, any surveys being done on the use of official languages on board planes, you told me that you were doing surveys. Further to your answer, I also asked you if you could make them public. You told me that, indeed, this was possible. Earlier, you talked to us about surveying about 100 people over the telephone, which, in your opinion, was new. In fact, this is not new, since you were already doing it. Why can't this survey be made public? You have already told me that the survey results could be disclosed.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: I apologize if I left you with the impression that we did not want to make them public. The results of the surveys that we have just conducted will certainly be included in our annual report that will be submitted to Treasury Board. This report is public.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I will perhaps conclude with a question for Mr. Milton. We will wait for the interpretation. If I still have a little bit of time after that, I will ask another question.

Mr. Milton, how much would it cost to make these tiny seat pocket folders available on the various flights that you provide? Your company has sales of approximately of $9 billion. What percentage of this amount would this practice represent? What dissuaded you from going ahead with such a concrete measure?

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: With all due respect, at this stage I don't really understand what this would precisely fulfil. I absolutely don't have any idea as to the potential cost. I would say that if it is something that adds discernible value, I wouldn't at this stage rule out anything, although, again, I don't understand the cost. We are open and working to get better. Again, to the notion of suggestions, I'm open to the extent that greater specificity can be provided on what we're talking about asking people. I'll be glad to look at it. It's not a question of yes or no. I don't really fully understand the idea.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I'll come back to it at the end.

Madam Fraser, you're next.

Senator Joan Fraser: Thank you, Chair.

I don't know if Mr. Binet would call this a spectacular gesture, but it occurs to me that with all that's going on right now—I mean, you've got merged seniorities, you've got action plans, you've got protocols and you've got the yin-yang—maybe it would be a good time for you to launch directly, personally, a positive message to your employees.

One way in which various companies have tried to do this in the past—and sometimes it's very effective—is to have a series of president's prizes for the people who go the extra mile, or who find the most creative or imaginative way to do something. I'm not talking about rewarding people for doing the job they're supposed to do. I'm talking about the people who go beyond—you know, somebody who helps a unilingual francophone who's stranded in Regina to get accommodation and then back out to the airport the next day, or whatever.

• 1940

That kind of thing doesn't have to cost much. You have access to planes. You could fly them all in to Montreal for a nice dinner with you and a night on the town, a weekend in a good hotel, and a plaque, and maybe a small cheque.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Senator Joan Fraser: No, but seriously, are you even thinking about something to reach out to all these people who you are trying to make adjust their thinking and their ways of working, to say to them, “We're noticing”?

Mr. Robert Milton: I'm actually thinking about a letter I received today about an employee—who is not a bilingual employee—coming out of Beijing last week who was incredibly helpful to a passenger whose husband had just about died on the flight, to the point where this flight attendant went with the customers to the hospital, allowed her to stay in her own house, lent her her own clothes. We've got amazing employees doing amazing things all over the world every day. And for sure I will be attempting to award this person appropriately.

You've presented a different angle that I'm open to looking at. Also, through the communication I do with employees, we'll definitely be adding to the communication the fact that I met with the commissioner. I'll also talk about the fact that I've met with this committee. It's positive reinforcement, and I'm absolutely open to it.

Senator Joan Fraser: We talk all the time about obligations, and it's true, you have very serious obligations in this field and should have. But if it's always viewed as a burden, then it will never be anything but a burden.

Mr. Robert Milton: I honestly believe our employees don't look at it as a burden. In a group of 40,000 I accept that not everybody has the message right, and that's what we've got to keep working on. I accept happily the idea.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Godin, you have five minutes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It is more than at the House of Commons. There we only have 35 seconds.

You know, Mr. Milton, our job is not always easy, particularly in a case such as this one.

[English]

Did you get that one?

Mr. Robert Milton: We got that one easily.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Well, on the plane they don't translate at all.

[Translation]

I must say that I am not satisfied. I did not want to talk about the union and the collective agreement initially, but I think that this example clearly illustrates the compliance problems and Air Canada's position. It would be difficult for me to give you kudos on this issue because, in all honesty, I am extremely disappointed.

I have here letters that were translated and printed a few years ago. I will give you an example. It has been a while now. Here is one: “I have in hand the French translation of the 1996-98 collective agreements”. This was December 4, 2000, at 8:50. This was a letter that Mr. Edmond Udvarhelyi had sent to Ms. Debby Newman. She was probably an Air Canada representative. “Two flight attendants from Montreal were to verify the French translation and the English version.” In the year 2000, we are talking about the 1996-98 agreement.

My dear friends, I have negotiated collective agreements more than once and I refused to meet the members that next evening if I did not have the collective agreement in both languages in my hands. When the agreement was signed, it was signed in both languages, even if it had been negotiated in English.

In this case, we are talking about years. I cannot, therefore, accept what you said earlier. I have, in my hands, documents that deal with this issue. For example, on December 11, 2000, this letter states that more and more members were asking for a French copy of the collective agreement. People were also asking when the French version of the 1996-98 collective agreements would be ready and when the French version of the last agreement would be ready.

This is totally unacceptable. If you would like, I can send you a personal letter and attach a copy of these letters, Mr. Milton, so that you can understand the magnitude of the problem. I think that Air Canada employees are entitled to have a collective agreement in their language.

• 1945

When I see how seriously you are trying to resolve this problem, I have no difficulty believing that aviation is in trouble. I am not happy with this solution whereby passengers are informed of security measures by means of a cassette that you provide. What cassette do you use to tell us what to do? Is there a CD player?

There is a problem. As I said earlier, the situation between Ottawa and Montreal is unacceptable. We have given you many examples. I will now quote the answer you gave on March 12, 2001, with respect to the request to print the collective agreement. I quote: “We received your letter dated March 12, 2001 [...] and we do not agree with its content.” and “...the company is of the opinion that it would not be timely to reprint it for the time being.” [Translation] This letter was signed by Mr. Christopher Hallamore. Who is he? Does he work for Air Canada? Yes. He says: “We received your letter [...] and we do not agree...” Do you know what you need to do in such a situation? You get everybody together in one room and you prevent them from leaving until there is a collective agreement. If you do not do this for collective agreements, how are you going to have any assurances about service to the public later on?

First, you have to respect your employees. That's my opinion. I would like to know yours. You have to start with the employees and then continue with the public.

So I am very disappointed and I have problems accepting what you said earlier to the effect you didn't agree with the union. I have here letters that state the absolute opposite.

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: The thought that comes to mind is it takes two to tango. In taking two to tango, there has to be cooperation from the other side. Obviously, we have the capacity; we have the wherewithal. Clearly, we demonstrate, day in, day out, production in both languages consistently. I look forward very much to our people, subsequent to this meeting, providing you with the facts in terms of the availability of these documents—you see the heads nodding—in both languages, French in particular. It's unfortunate that you've been misled—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have a little question. Who is subject to the Official Languages Act? Air Canada or the CAW?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: Air Canada.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.)): Mr. Milton, thank you for appearing before us.

I was astounded when I heard you say a lot of the employees you had to let go were those who were hired within the last five years and are consequently your bilingual employees. It makes me sick.

Mr. Bellemare, I couldn't agree with you more in what you said. I'm frightened too. As an anglophone who married a francophone—and my family is fluently bilingual—I'm disgusted.

I'm disgusted with any company that can turn around and say “I'd like an ideal state. What is an ideal state? To me an ideal state is no official languages.” Canada has two languages. That's it; that's all. There is nothing else; there is no excuse. There is no trying to justify it. We have two official languages. Before you sign your next official agreement, if you really want an ideal state, couldn't you tell your unions to go to hell—“You will be bilingual because we have a law to obey, and if we don't obey that law, what's going to happen to Air Canada?”

I'm going to start looking. I've been totally the other side. The more I hear, the more disgusted I get. What happens to Air Canada if it does not obey the Official Languages Act? Why do we need an official languages act? You people are serving the public. The public in Canada is bilingual: anglophone and francophone. They merit and they deserve to be served in their language. I don't care if they're Canadian employees. I don't care if a CAW guy can't speak French—too bad; get somebody who can. I'd like your comments on that, Mr. Milton.

Mr. Robert Milton: In particular, I look forward to the clarity you and the members of this committee will provide in terms of the precedence that will exist going forward vis-à-vis contractual agreements and the Official Languages Act. I think that would be terrific clarity that would be very helpful in helping us move this much further, positively.

• 1950

Ms. Sue Welscheid: If I could just chime in, when we saw the layoffs coming and we understood the impact they would have on our bilingual capability, we wrote a letter to each of our unions asking them if they would sit down with us to find another way to effect these layoffs that would not involve seniority, so we could protect our bilingual capability. We received no replies to those letters.

Mr. Peter Donolo: We can table those letters. We have them here.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Shirley Maheu): Would you, please? And I think perhaps the committee will have to invite the unions back to see where they are in terms of working for a bilingual company—a company that has to obey the languages act. And if you don't, then one of them has to give in and has to go, as far as I'm concerned. There are no two ways about it.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: I have a question for the union the next time you invite them. Could you please ask them why it is when you asked them for suggestions, none suggested to you that the only and most rapid way to comply with the Official Languages Act was to assign people who are bilingual where we need them?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Shirley Maheu): To the union, too.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Milton, I have a few comments and rapid questions, if I may.

You focused a bit at the start on the number of complaints. We have been told on a few occasions by the official languages commissioner and by people who work for Air Canada that 137 is but the tip of the iceberg, that there are a lot of people who don't complain for fear, perhaps, of reprisals or because it's a pain to do so. I've been cautioned about having a fixation on that particular number only. That's my comment there—I'm probably responsible for four or five of those 137.

[Translation]

Are the action plans and protocol agreements public documents, Madam?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: The report is given to Treasury Board and is public.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): What about the action plan you will be preparing after Christmas, in March?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: We didn't discuss the possibility of making it public, but I see no objections to making that action plan public. However, I don't exactly know through what channels to go.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Do you have the power to make that commitment for Air Canada? Is that what you have just done?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: This is a document that also belongs to the Commissioner for Official Languages. So it would have to be discussed with them.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I am not talking about the agreement protocol. I am talking about the action plan.

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: We are also working on the action plan in cooperation with the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: It's not going to be a secret plan. This is something that is corporate-wide that we're going to be acting on, so—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It will be made public?

Mr. Robert Milton: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Monsieur Bellemare mentioned this question of where numbers warrant, and this is a question I know some of you might have expected from me. The president of the Canadian Tourism Commission, Mr. Watson, was here as one of our witnesses.

Should that 5% apply—in other words, should Air Canada have the will to fly and land anyone, any Canadian, anywhere in this country, in either official language, never mind this 5% thing? Do you feel that should be abandoned?

Mr. Robert Milton: Sorry?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The law states that you have obligations under the act. Treasury Board has a set of regulations, and one of those says if there's not a 5% demand in certain areas, you may dispense with providing services in either of the official languages.

So the question is, would you go beyond that and decide as a corporation, because it is of value, to forsake this 5% and basically make the objective that you will serve the entire country, wherever you serve it, in either official language?

Mr. Robert Milton: Frankly, we do attempt worldwide to go beyond it, so the attempt to go beyond it is something I can commit to in terms of what's required of us—and obviously it's bodies like this that will make determinations. But again, I would throw open the question, if it's really about a Canadian tourism issue, should it not be the industry? Should it not be anybody flying an airplane over Canadian airspace that's a Canadian airline, if that's what it's about?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So if it's applied, you want it applied to everyone?

Mr. Robert Milton: Again, if that's the heart of the issue.

• 1955

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The question of getting your clients to give their comments, could that be included in the magazine that's put out monthly in every seat pocket?

Mr. Robert Milton: I wouldn't rule it out.

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

Mr. Robert Milton: This could be something the commissioner would like to fund, as an example. If that's the case, we can—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Or the government.

All right, this is my last one. I've gotten the impression at some point that there's a whole other section we haven't even touched on tonight, and that's personnel and the adequate representation within Air Canada of people who are hired from either linguistic group. We've had pilots, for instance, come here and tell us quite clearly that the statistics given by Air Canada annually to the Treasury Board are just too nebulous.

Is there a commitment to make sure the statistics given to the Treasury Board every year on linguistic capacity and the mother tongue, if you will, of each employee are pretty close to actual numbers, as opposed to 20% off?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: I certainly can reply to that question.

[Translation]

As you certainly remember, Ms. Maheu, you asked us to change the question so that everybody would understand it and fill in the questionnaire. That was done. The questionnaire was circulated in early summer to all employees from Canadian who had never filled in that kind of questionnaire as well as all employees of Air Canada who, in the past, had not answered. The 20% gap comes from that.

The questionnaires are coming back to us and this is really an extraordinary project that is being followed week after week. Eighty per cent of them came back with answers and we had thought of making a second and third attempt to try to reach the people who aren't answering. We won't let go. We will see it through.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So, from this year on, we will have access to more exact statistics on Air Canada's capacity to offer bilingual services as well as its linguistic profile.

[English]

Mr. Peter Donolo: I have an anecdote on that, Mr. Chairman. Michelle called me into her office a couple of weeks ago saying she had a matter to talk about with me, and it turns out I was delinquent in filling out the form myself when I was hired six or seven months ago.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): There's nothing new there.

Mr. Peter Donolo: So there you go.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Finally—and I'm rushed for time here—I've also been given the impression, Mr. Milton, that Air Canada has difficulty hiring francophone pilots because the system, our country, does not produce enough. Is that accurate?

Mr. Robert Milton: I would simply say one thing. Our sole focus is on hiring absolutely the best quality, the most qualified pilots available, and I think the track record of Air Canada's operational and piloting skills speaks for itself.

If the first 100% were francophone, I could care less. As a statement of the direction of Air Canada, it is solely based on capability and qualification. We hire many, many francophone pilots. I flew back home last night with two. So, as a statement, it is about standards.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): But beyond that statement, is the system in Canada producing enough pilots of francophone origin for Air Canada to meet it's obligations?

Mr. Robert Milton: Again, a purely quota basis is not the basis we should be looking to operate on—it's a basis of qualification. But given that a pilot career at a place like Air Canada is a fine career, if we were able to turn out more qualified francophone pilots who were able to become Air Canada pilots, I think it would be good for those involved.

Mr. Peter Donolo: Just to add to what Mr. Milton's saying, that we already provide a number of scholarships at flight schools in Quebec, is that correct, Michelle?

Ms. Michelle Perreault-Ieraci: In Chicoutimi.

Mr. Peter Donolo: My understanding, based on the conversations I've had with our VP of operations, is that there's not the same number of personnel turned out of flight schools in Quebec as in other parts of the country.

But we can get back to you on that. I'll get back to you in writing on that, perhaps.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Fair enough.

[Translation]

Are there any other questions or comments? Go ahead, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I just want to make sure I understood properly.

I am sorry if you're getting the impression I am obsessed, but I would like to talk about the forms in the seat pockets...

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: Do you have any interest in a form company?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, but Ms. Ieraci has already said that it was a bit too expensive. You said you were open to the idea. You publish the monthly magazine En route. You use a beautiful glazed glossy paper. All the passengers get a copy and it's all very nice. If I have understood what you were telling Mr. Bélanger, it seems that if we wanted to include the form in it, you would have asked us to pay for the cost.

• 2000

That's what I though I heard. Am I wrong?

[English]

Mr. Robert Milton: Look, in answering your question I said that I have no idea of the cost. I have no idea of the content of the form you're thinking about, so really, I can only understand generally what you're even thinking about asking people. Assuming it's not anything that would be an affront to passengers—and I'm sure that's not what you're thinking about—I would have no hesitation in providing a helpful way to get useful information.

To the extent that there's a cost, though, I'd like to think that it would be reasonable to look to the government. If the government is also benefiting from this information, the government has to provide the funding to do it. Otherwise, as a notion, no, I don't have an issue with it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser: Sir, you could do it with one half-page per issue—

Mr. Robert Milton: You wouldn't want to know the cost of a half-page.

Senator Joan Fraser: —with a page for each language. Kill off one of your reviews of restaurants in Bangkok or whatever. There's a lot of stuff in that magazine that could be cut or could be edited down.

Mr. Robert Milton: I'm glad you're looking through it, though; that's good.

Senator Joan Fraser: Oh, religiously.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Milton, I think you might have sensed the real desire among the members of this committee, these parliamentarians, to see that Air Canada does indeed live up to its obligations. This group might also, perhaps, sense a will to do so.

I have a final question and comment for you. Is there anything beyond the hints we've received tonight that this committee could recommend to the government to help Air Canada respect and fulfil its obligations in terms of the linguistic duality of this country?

Mr. Robert Milton: I think one is obviously the clarity on the collective agreements versus the act. A second thing, just from a perspective standpoint and as was addressed earlier, is that this has been a difficult year for major world airlines. You've seen many of the best-known names in the world—Swissair, Sabina, and Ansett—literally go out of business. The U.S. industry this year will lose $10 billion U.S. This is not a Canada problem Air Canada is trying to weather through; it is a global industry crisis.

Money is a real issue. When we work to train unilingual people, obviously we have to pull them out and still fully compensate them. Again, I don't want to open a Pandora's box, but one thing I would ask you to consider is that funding provided by the government would obviously enable us to accelerate things beyond the means of a company that is struggling post-September 11 to deal with the worst catastrophe the industry has ever faced. Again, I haven't sized that statement, but clearly, the capacity to deal with things on a more accelerated basis, given that we only have a certain number of people and that we operate a certain number of flights... So to start pulling people out and accelerating courses, which we're doing as fast as we think we can, given the timelines we're under—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I want to make sure I understand. Are you suggesting that you would welcome assistance in linguistic training?

Mr. Robert Milton: Yes. Given the situation of the post-Canadian Airlines acquisition, which meant an influx of 16,000 unilingual employees, and the post-September 11 environment, that's only helpful. I'm not saying it's a requirement. We are still committed, as I've said, to just keep barrelling away at doing it right, but further support can only help.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Those on this committee who think they're getting the last word are usually wrong.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I just want to suggest that maybe you could speak to the Minister of Human Resources. She has in her bank account at Human Resources a $40 billion surplus, and it could go to phase two of employment insurance. It is there strictly to help businesses whose employees have lost their jobs.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you very much. I would hope that this is the start of a good friendship. Take care.

Mr. Robert Milton: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The meeting is adjourned.