LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 4, 2001

• 1529

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to start by asking the cameraman to leave, or to take the camera out and stay. We will wait until that is done.

• 1530

We are continuing our study on Air Canada's service in Canada's two official languages. Our witness today is the President of Treasury Board, Ms. Robillard, and the Minister of Transport, Mr. Collenette. Welcome to our committee. Thank you for coming.

I am going to start by giving you the floor, and then we will have our usual question and answer period. If I understood correctly, Minister, you can stay with us for one hour. Is that correct?

We will have a five-minute round, so that everyone can ask their questions. Is that all right with you?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Are we going to ask questions first?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, we will hear the presentations, Mr. Sauvageau, and then we will move to the questions.

Please give us 30 seconds to allow Senator Gauthier to get set up, Ms. Robillard. Let us start by making sure that Senator Gauthier has a copy of the text.

Please proceed, Ms. Robillard.

The Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President, Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Madam Joint Chair, Mr. Joint Chairman, members of the Committee on Official Languages, first, I would like to say that I appreciate this opportunity you have given us to discuss our points of view on the services provided by Air Canada in the context of official languages.

Let me begin by introducing the people who have accompanied me: Carole Swan, Associate Secretary of the Treasury Board Secretariat, and Ms. Diana Monnet, Assistant Secretary of the Official Languages Branch.

I know that you have done a great deal of work on this matter. You have already heard my officials, and yesterday you heard from Robert Milton. Now I will try to answer your questions, and clarify a number of points that seem to be of particular concern to you.

My colleague, the Minister of Transport, will talk to you shortly about his department's responsibilities, in particular for safety in air transport.

First, let us clarify the role of the Treasury Board Secretariat. The Official Languages Act clearly establishes that it is up to each institution to which it applies, including Air Canada, to implement the provisions of Parts IV, V and VI which deal respectively with communications with and services to the public, language of work and participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians.

Part VIII of the Act gives the Treasury Board the role and responsibilities for the general direction and coordination of federal policies and programs relating to the implementation of parts I listed earlier, and for monitoring and auditing compliance with the language obligations by institutions subject to the Act.

[English]

Treasury Board uses various means to promote respect for the Official Languages Act. For example, in the year 2000-01, it conducted the most extensive audit so far of active offer and provision of services to the travelling public in the airports in Vancouver, Calgary, and Winnipeg, at Pearson International Airport in Toronto, at Montréal-Dorval Airport, and at the Moncton and Halifax airports. Overall, the findings concerning the services provided by Air Canada were satisfactory. We plan to carry out a follow-up to these audits in 2002 to ensure that the necessary improvements are made.

Also, your concerns about the incomplete, vague statistics received from Air Canada regarding the number of English-speaking and French-speaking employees have been heard. The official languages branch and Air Canada agreed last summer on a more specific question for identification with one of Canada's two official languages. We firmly believe this new question will enable us, in 2002, to obtain new, more specific data from the employee survey conducted in the summer of 2001.

• 1535

Following the coming into force of the amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act in July 2000 and the integration of the employees of Canadian Airlines International, Air Canada gave the Treasury Board Secretariat, in its annual review for 2000-01, information concerning the measures taken to provide bilingual services on the new routes. The response by the Treasury Board Secretariat to Air Canada's chief executive officer acknowledged the work done on this subject, and encouraged him to continue his efforts in this area.

As for implementation of other aspects of the program, the secretariat has asked that measures be taken to correct the shortcomings identified, such as the language capacity of service points designated as bilingual, and the data on equitable participation. We will also continue to monitor the quality of bilingual services on routes on which the provision of such services is mandatory. Of course, Air Canada bears the primary responsibility for taking the measures necessary to ensure that the services are provided in both official languages in places in which the institution is required to do so.

[Translation]

I also know, from reading some of your debates, that you are concerned about the Official Languages (Communications with and Service to the Public) Regulations. Those regulations are based on a strong legal foundation, the Official Languages Act, which applies to institutions, including Air Canada, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which stipulates that the services are to be provided in both official languages where there is significant demand or where the nature of the office requires it.

I would also like to mention that 94% of the official language minority population is entitled to receive local services in their language. The Regulations also guarantee that travellers are entitled to a range of federal services in both official languages, particularly at a number of airports.

Does that mean that everything is perfect? I would not venture to make that claim. In the Secretariat we must carry out the work assigned to us by the Act, but we must do so in close cooperation with Air Canada and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, to ensure that Canadians who travel will receive the services they require in their preferred official languages, wherever that is their right.

It is in that spirit of co-operation that I will now welcome your comments and your questions.

[English]

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

[Translation]

The Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Chair. I am very pleased to be here this afternoon to discuss this issue.

Let me come right to the point and quickly recapitulate my reply to some of the issues you have raised and our reply to your interim report.

I should start by saying that with me today is Ms. Dufour, the Director General, Air Policy, at Transport Canada, and Mr. Jacques Pigeon, the Senior General Counsel at Transport Canada.

First, the linguistic regime applying to Air Canada.

When the government decided to privatize Air Canada, it ceased to be a federal institution. However, it also decided that the corporation would continue to be subject to the requirements of the Official Languages Act, for the purpose of protecting existing linguistic rights.

Last year, as part of the airline restructuring legislation, the government clarified and extended the obligations of Air Canada with respect to its subsidiaries regarding the provision of services in both official languages.

[English]

Specifically, under the legislative amendments to section 10 of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which came into force on July 5, 2000, Air Canada has the duty to ensure that, in subsidiaries over which it has 50% control, those subsidiaries provide air services to clients in either of the official languages. This is in accordance with the requirements of part IV of the Official Languages Act and the regulations. The applicability of this obligation varies, depending on the region and the subsidiary providing the service.

My colleague Madame Robillard, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the courts, and I, as Minister of Transport, all have a role to play in monitoring the application of the act.

• 1540

[Translation]

As Minister of Transport, I recognize that I am well placed to stress to Air Canada the importance the government attaches to this matter, the belief that the provision of bilingual air services makes good commercial sense, and that this government fully expects the company to comply with all the requirements of the law.

I would be happy to discuss the response I sent out on July 5, 2001, further to a request from your committee, in which I clarified the responsibilities of air carriers, including Air Canada, regarding passenger briefing and safety feature cards.

At that time, I provided a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding on the processing of alleged violations concerning safety briefings aboard aircraft between my department and the Commissioner of Official Languages; it specifically acknowledges the responsibility of my department with respect to enforcement actions in this specific area.

[English]

I have extra copies of the material available if you should need them.

[Translation]

In conclusion, I want to ensure you that the government is not disposed to entertain the suggestions that have been heard recently that Air Canada should be relieved of its linguistic obligations because they are more onerous than those of other carriers. These obligations are here to stay, as with other federal transportation providers that operate successfully in the private sector, such as Canadian National Railways.

Thank you very much.

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

[English]

Mr. Moore.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

To the Minister of Transport, Robert Milton noted yesterday that since last year's merger with Canadian Airlines, which was not subject to the Official Languages Act, Air Canada's staff almost doubled to 40,000, up from 23,000. Before the committee, he said that because Air Canada is the only Canadian carrier mandated to provide services in both official languages, it should get more federal money for second-language training. What's your response?

Mr. David Collenette: First of all, I'd just like to correct something you said. Perhaps you misspoke.

As I explained in my speech, a big part of the deal on December 21, 1999, was the fact that in taking over Canadian Airlines, Air Canada would have the Official Languages Act apply to Canadian Airlines and to the Canadian Airlines subsidiaries, with it phased in over three years, depending on the part of the country.

Mr. Moore asked me a question similar to this in the Transport Committee, and I have to be pretty bloody-minded about this. When Air Canada was privatized in 1987 or 1988, people who bought shares knew, should have known, or should have been told by brokers, that Air Canada was to be floated as a publicly traded company, but with certain obligations. Those obligations specifically were to keep the headquarters in Montreal and to have the Official Languages Act apply. As far as the government is concerned, this is something that is not negotiable, and we will stand by that.

With respect to Mr. Milton's desire for money, we know he makes those requests from time to time, but on the specific application with respect to language training, perhaps I could turn it over to Madam Robillard. But the fact of the matter is that Air Canada cannot wriggle out of a legal obligation that it has, and we cannot rewrite history and try to mislead people that somehow, because they are a private-sector company, because they are having financial trouble, they should no longer respect the Official Languages Act.

Mr. James Moore: So money is not on.

Mr. David Collenette: Any money would have to come from my colleague. She has all the money.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Would you like to comment?

[English]

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It's not on.

Mr. James Moore: I have another question.

The Minister of Transport slightly misrepresented what I said at a past committee. What I suggested was that if official languages are an essential core of what it is to be Canadian—and we may agree on that; as a product of French-immersion learning, I do believe in the principle of official bilingualism in this country—why not therefore take the mandate that Air Canada abide by the statute, the Official Languages Act, out of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, put it in the Official Languages Act, and mandate that all carriers on a level playing field have to abide by the official languages principle?

• 1545

Mr. David Collenette: It ignores a fundamental reality that Trans-Canada Airlines/Air Canada was a public carrier, was an instrument of national policy, and was still effectively following certain public policy precepts with respect to the Official Languages Act when it was privatized.

No one can contest the fact that Air Canada is the dominant carrier, is present throughout the country, and therefore has an obligation to serve the country in both official languages. Perhaps one would argue that this puts it at a bit of a disadvantage as compared to other carriers, but I don't think so. I've talked to the heads of other carriers, like Canada 3000 as it was, or WestJet. They all understood the basic reality that if you want to serve a market in Canada, you have to provide bilingual services. If WestJet goes into Montreal and wants to get the love and affection of the people of Quebec, they'll have to make sure they speak to those people in both languages.

Mr. James Moore: In a sense, then, you just defeated your own argument. You're saying market forces would mandate that carriers provide services in official languages, but that even though there are market forces, the government still has to mandate it somehow.

Mr. David Collenette: In the case of Air Canada, we cannot let them weaken a residual obligation of sixty years' standing.

Mr. James Moore: Then let me ask you this question—and it's my last question.

There's talk of another discount carrier coming from Air Canada. Tango has happened, and Canada 3000 has died. There's now talk of a low-cost company that would be a subsidiary of Air Canada and would fly principally in western Canada, with bases in Hamilton and Calgary, going straight after WestJet. Would you mandate that Air Canada provide services in both official languages in those locations and that WestJet not, therefore putting Air Canada at a competitive disadvantage?

Mr. David Collenette: It's not a question of fiat for the Minister of Transport, it's a question of what the law is, as amended in Bill C-26. I'll let Madam Dufour and Monsieur Pigeon correct me, but as I said in my speech, my understanding is that the Official Languages Act applies to any subsidiary of Air Canada if it owns at least 50% of the shares; and it cannot replace services on any route with another entity—a low-cost carrier for example—without following the tenets of the Official Languages Act.

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

[Translation]

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): I would like to ask you a question, Mr. Collenette, to try to clarify a situation that is somewhat confusing.

The Canadian Aeronautics Act provides that air carriers must provide passenger briefings and safety feature cards to their passengers in both official languages. Is that true or false?

Mr. David Collenette: True.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So that settles the question raised yesterday evening. We were told that because the numbers did not warrant... Are those words still used “where numbers warrant”? As far as I know, that term no longer exists. The expression is rather: “where there is significant demand”. There is no reference to numbers. Am I right or wrong?

Yesterday, I reread the letter you sent us on July 5. There are certain requirements that apply to some air carriers that use aircraft with 19 or 20 seats, such as the type that Mr. Godin often takes. There are linguistic requirements that apply in these cases. There are different requirements in the case of aircraft with more than 20 seats, excluding the pilots, for Air Canada and all air carriers. In the case of the planes Mr. Godin takes, with 19 seats or less, the linguistic requirements are different. Could you explain that clearly for me, please?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Senator Gauthier, you first referred to safety. Are you now referring to the regulations?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am still talking about safety.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Oh, about safety.

• 1550

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will get back to you soon, do not worry.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, we are not worried.

Mr. David Collenette: The senator is referring to safety, which is covered in the Aeronautics Act. There are different procedures in the case of aircraft with 19 passengers or less. Perhaps Mr. Pigeon could find the specific section where this is mentioned.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon (General Counsel, Legal Services, Transport Canada): The Aeronautics Act requires that passengers be given safety briefings on aircraft where there are at least 20 seats. Passengers must also be given safety feature cards in both official languages.

In the case of planes with between 10 and 19 seats, that is fewer than 20, oral briefings are not required, but safety feature cards must be available in both official languages.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have here the letter you sent me in July, Mr. Pigeon. I read it; it is clear and those who do not understand should obtain a copy of it. It is very easy to read and very understandable.

Mr. David Collenette: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... we agree on the answer.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I agree with him because he agrees with the act.

Ms. Robillard, you get figures, statistics, surveys and all sorts of reports from Air Canada. Last year I wrote to Mr. Milton about some staff reductions, because I was concerned about the fact that the company might be letting go some bilingual employees. I was told that the seniority rule would apply, and that as a result, even though it was unfortunate, bilingual employees could very well lose their jobs to employees with more seniority, but who were not bilingual.

I therefore ask Mr. Milton to tell me whether this was true. He told me that this issue was causing no difficulties and that the problem did not occur. In fact, he told me that 23% or 24% of Air Canada's employees are francophones. I find that strange because it was not in keeping with what I understood to be the case.

I therefore wrote to Ms. Dyane Adam, the Commissioner of Official Languages and asked for further explanations. She sent me a letter on February 28 of this year. Of the 22,000 employees, 37.7%, or 8,294, were listed as “unknown”. These figures date back to 1999. They are the most recent I have been able to find. The percentage of anglophones was estimated to be 45.7%, or 10,043 employees, while francophones accounted for 16.7%. Yesterday evening, I heard Mr. Milton say that the company had had to reduce its staff, and therefore let go many bilingual people, and that for some time, the company would have to work with unilingual employees.

Were you given any clearer figures this years? I react strongly when I hear that 37% of employees were in the “unknown” category. It seems to me that the question must be badly phrased. Have you done anything to try to correct this problem?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, Senator. This touches on the whole issue of equitable participation. We must therefore base our analysis on verifiable data, and with 37% in the “unknown” category, we do not know what's really going on.

I think that for a long time, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Office of the Commissioner have been demanding Air Canada to use a different approach to clarify this information. Finally, we entered into an agreement with Air Canada this summer, as I said in my opening remarks, and as a result the next data should give us a more accurate idea about the breakdown between francophones and anglophones.

However, this is very recent, so it will apply to the next survey of employees, which will be conducted soon.

• 1555

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

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... table with you—

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: —and make them public.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you.

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

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Ministers and distinguished guests, it is a pleasure to have both of you at the same time.

My question is for Ms. Robillard or Ms. Monnet. Why did it take so long to draft such an easy question about how many francophones and anglophones there are at Air Canada? Why did it take Treasury Board so long to ask this question?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The Secretariat?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Ms. Monnet.

Ms. Diana Monnet (Assistant Secretary, Official Languages, Treasury Board Secretariat): It took time, first because the initial question was confusing, because some Air Canada employees did not want to identify themselves as francophones or anglophones. They were really bilingual or bicultural and did not want to choose a language. In addition, there were allophones.

This time, we have included an explanation with a question and I hope this will make it clearer. The exact wording of the question—and I believed you talked about this yesterday evening—is as follows:

The Official Languages Act provides for two official languages in Canada, English and French. Which of the two official languages do you most identify with?

So this gives allophones an opportunity to indicate one language or the other, as it does for francophones and anglophones.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But as you know, there were two questions on official languages on the employment application form. The first was: “What is the first language you spoke that you still understand? English, French, other”. That was question 5. Question 7 was: “With respect to Canada's official languages, to which language group do you feel you belong?” There were two questions. Treasury Board kept one. It must have been the wrong one. If you had chosen the other one, would you have received fewer “unknowns?”

Ms. Diana Monnet: That is possible, yes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: And did you look at this before you tried to negotiate?

Ms. Diana Monnet: No.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Look, Mr. Sauvageau, you say that these questions are on the Air Canada's employment application form. We are talking about Air Canada employees for whom the company is supposed to provide some figures for us.

What you are demonstrating, what you seem to be saying, is that Air Canada's human resources department could have given us much more reliable information, if it kept all the application forms it received. That is what you are saying.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That is correct. You agree with me on this point.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That is perfect. That is wonderful. It is always better when things are clear.

I would like to hear your opinion on another matter. Your predecessor, Mr. Guénette, I believe, made this comment:

... the Official Languages Act [...] refers to an obligation to make an effort, rather than to an obligation to achieve results.”

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We have to have the context for this quotation that you are throwing at us.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You need the know the context. It is out of context. You say you seek to achieve concrete results.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Of course. All government operations are based on results. The same is true of official languages. We need ways of measuring performance and we need to be able to measure results.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The Treasury Board Secretariat on Official Languages has three areas of activities, and, according to a speech we heard here, the second focuses on an evaluation of objectives achieved and results obtained by the government and institutions subject to the act. So, at some point, you should get some results about the number of complaints regarding Air Canada and the follow-up to these complaints, and so on.

Could the Treasury Board Secretariat require Air Canada to have a simple, standard complaint form so that anyone can file a complaint in cases where the Official Languages Act is not complied with in an airport or on an aircraft?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Was this point not already raised with Mr. Milton directly? Was he not asked to do this?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes. However, since one of your activities is to ensure compliance with the act and to evaluate the results and objectives achieved, you say you want to see a reduction in the number of complaints at Air Canada. In order for this to happen, you have to know the origin of the complaint. And in order to do that—

The thing is, from what we are told, at the moment it is quite a feat to actually file a complaint, particularly when one is on board on Air Canada aircraft, and is not given instructions on how to open the door if the plane should run into a tree. Is that not so, Mr. Godin?

• 1600

In this confusion, we were told that people should write to the Commissioner of Official Languages, to Mr. Robillard, to the Minister of Transport or to Air Canada. No one seems to know. Ultimately, no one can answer this question. Mr. Collenette said that it was not his business, but rather Air Canada's.

We need a simple form. As the person responsible for enforcing the Official Languages Act, could you require Air Canada to have a simple complaint form so that you can evaluate developments in the official languages situation, rather than making cute, but not very concrete, statements?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I can recommend this strongly to the company.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Right, you can recommend this to the company very strongly. And you would like that.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You ask what the Treasury Board Secretariat can do. My answer is that it can recommend this very strongly, but it cannot require the company to do this.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Collenette, do you think it would be possible to follow up on developments if all passengers and all employees were given a standard complaint form? It would not be very expensive. We were told yesterday that 30 million forms would be required, but after checking, we found out that Air Canada has approximately 100,000 seats and 137 complaints. So they would not have to renew the form too often.

Do you think it would be desirable to have such a form so that you can see what is happening, so that the President of Treasury Board can see what is happening, and so that we can see what is happening as well? Could you recommend that?

Mr. David Collenette: If we give the option of receiving complaints in this way, yes. For example, under Bill C-26, we established a Complaints Commissioner. This position is currently held by Mr. Hood. Since his appointment, there has been an increase in the number of complaints. If we distribute cards to passengers, if passengers know they can complain, there will probably be more complaints. Is that your point?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Would that improve the situation?

Mr. Collenette: Perhaps.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

[English]

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

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Minister Collenette, Robert Milton said yesterday that one of the problems facing Air Canada since September 11 was that the number of young bilingual flight attendants was going down. Under the rules of the collective agreement—last in, first out—the younger flight attendants hired partly for their linguistic abilities in the two official languages were being let go first, which ironically means less bilingual capacity amongst flight attendants after September 11 than before.

When you have two competing public policy objectives—on the one hand, a desire for entities like Air Canada to deliver bilingual services; on the other hand, a desire for Air Canada to take care of itself economically and make the decisions it needs to make to stay viable—do you have any say at all over the way in which, for example, Air Canada constructs its collective agreements, if the net result of the construction of those collective agreements is to reduce the bilingual capacity of the airline? Is there any way you can? How do you sort out those two competing imperatives?

Mr. David Collenette: This is a publicly traded company. It's in the private sector. Therefore, it's free to negotiate its collective agreements, but it has to negotiate its collective agreements knowing full well its obligations under the law, i.e., the Official Languages Act.

I didn't read all of Mr. Milton's comments, but I do find it a little odd that he would assert that the recently laid off employees are largely bilingual people—i.e., that Air Canada has been hiring more bilingual people lately than it did before—given the fact that it seems to me that when it was a crown corporation, the Official Languages Act was well entrenched. I would have therefore assumed the same number of bilingual people would have been employed. If you follow that argument through logically, it would seem to say the employees with the longer service tend not to be bilingual. I find that odd, but I'm not an expert on that particular area.

Mr. John Godfrey: If that in fact turned out to be case—that despite the long-time obligation of Air Canada to provide service bilingually, the reality of hiring, the human resource side, is that there has been an increase only recently in the hiring of bilingual people—does any part of the government have any authority to intervene, correct, or do something about that?

• 1605

Mr. David Collenette: No, not now that it's a private company. It has obligations to give the service, so one assumes it would hire and have enough people to provide the bilingual service, but in terms of government involvement, that ended when we privatized the company.

Mr. John Godfrey: So despite the fact that you might have expected them to behave differently, if they in fact didn't didn't hire as many bilingual people earlier on as they should have, with this result that they have less capacity now than they used to, there's nothing we can do about that.

Mr. David Collenette: Well, I'm still unclear about the facts. Perhaps we need to ask Mr. Milton or his staff to explain this. I don't know whether or not Madame Robillard agrees with me, but I find it odd that you would somehow have a large number of people with seniority who wouldn't be bilingual, given the fact that many of those people would have been hired while the company was a public company, a crown corporation. Therefore, the government was much more directly implicated in the management of the company, and it made sure the Official Languages Act was respected. So to answer your question, we really need further explanation from Air Canada on what exactly they meant.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Would you like to add something, Miss Robillard?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I would just like to say that Air Canada has always been subject to the Official Languages Act. That is not something that just happened recently.

Moreover, I acknowledge that collective agreements may sometimes cause problems. What I understood was that the union itself was prepared to comply with the Official Languages Act. I have not yet seen the agreements signed with the Commissioner of Official Languages. It would be interesting to analyze this agreement that was introduced by the Commissioner, the union and the company to prevent this from happening. The agreement has just been signed, and I have not seen it yet. I do not know whether you have asked that it be tabled with your committee, Mr. Chairman, so that you can have a closer look at it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, we have not received it. We just asked for it. We only heard about it yesterday.

Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Five minutes is short, Mr. Chairman.

I am disappointed to hear what we are hearing today, Minister Collenette. I was a union representative for a number of years, and I could never have negotiated a collective agreement that violated a law. Laws must be respected. The only thing we can do is to improve things, not go the other way.

I think that is the problem at Air Canada. You are giving the company an inch. You invite it to break the law. You say that you are going to respect the company's collective agreements, because it is in the private sector.

Since when does the private sector have the right to break the law? I would like to hear what you have to say about that. I think you made a mistake and misunderstood the question.

[English]

Mr. David Collenette: Perhaps I can explain this in English, because—

Mr. Yvon Godin: Go ahead, I understand English too.

Mr. David Collenette: —it will be easier for me to make this point.

This is not an area that I normally deal in, but my understanding is that in negotiating collective agreements, Air Canada has to respect the Official Languages Act. I think you're putting words in my mouth. I said to Mr. Godfrey that I find what Mr. Milton said last night is odd, and I think we should ask him for some clarification. On the assumption that the law was being followed—and I'm sure it must have been—then there must have been as great a repository of bilingual people before as there was recently. That's why I find it difficult to understand the statement that recent hires are more bilingual than those with seniority, given the fact that all the collective agreements had to follow the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Minister, through the chair, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I want you to check the blues to see what you have said. You have said that even if we have a law, Air Canada is a private company and is allowed—I believe it was along these lines—to negotiate its collective agreements. In reality, though, that has nothing to do with it. I say, no, the law is the law.

Mr. David Collenette: We said the same thing.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Well, then you misunderstand our...check the blues to see what you have said.

• 1610

In your speaking points, you say:

As Minister of Transport, I recognize that I am well placed to stress to Air Canada the importance the governments attach to this matter, the belief that the provision of bilingual air services makes good commercial sense, and that this government fully expects the company to comply with all the requirements of the law.

[Translation]

I cannot even understand why you were talking about that. It is as simple as that. There is an act, and we want it to be respected. When I take a plane to go from Ottawa to Montreal, I want service in French, not in English, as happened to me in June. That was before September 11. When I took the plane in August to go from Montreal to London, Ontario, I wanted service in French. That was not possible on an Air Canada flight, even though the company is subject to the act.

Let me give you another example. On May 2 of this year, we heard from Ms. Dufour, from the Department of Transport, who told us that it was up to the Treasury Board Secretariat to deal with complaints. On May 8, Ms. Monnet from the Treasury Board Secretariat told us the opposite. Air Canada may very well have 137 complaints. The fact is it does not comply with the act. You are both passing the buck. Who can ensure compliance with the act?

I repeat what is written in our proceedings. The two witnesses passed the buck from May 2 to May 8. That is all we hear in this committee. No one wants to assume responsibility for saying that the act must be respected, whether or not this is good for business. What sanctions does the act allow us to impose on companies that do not respect it? Are we just going to wait for companies to decide to become good citizens?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Godin, that is why both ministers are here today.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Who is responsible if there are two ministers?

An hon. member: Stéphane Dion.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Responsible for what? Ask me a direct question.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Who is responsible for enforcing the Official Languages Act on Air Canada aircraft? Which department is responsible for making Air Canada comply with the act?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: At Treasury Board, we are responsible not only for issuing policies to federal institutions, but also for monitoring them. When we monitor them to see how these policies are carried out and we see problems like the ones at Air Canada and in some federal institutions, we ask the institution to prepare an action plan to rectify the problems.

You went farther than that in your question. You asked what sanctions are contained in the act.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The problem has existed for 30 years, Madam Minister. When will it be resolved once and for all?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I understood from what you heard yesterday that Air Canada was prepared to take a closer look at the problems and to prepare a public action plan to resolve them. What exactly do you want us to do, Mr. Godin? Follow your idea through.

Mr. Yvon Godin: When the government adopts an act, it must enforce it. I did follow my idea through.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: If you are talking about enforcement measures within an act... Wait, let me finish. If you are talking about tools and enforcement measures set out in the act governing Air Canada to enforce this part of the Official Languages Act, my colleagues will be able to answer your question. That is not my area.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You are passing the buck.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, we are not passing the buck. We are both here at the same time to answer your question.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I am not getting an answer.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I do not think that there are enforcement measures in the act, but David will answer your question.

Mr. David Collenette: She is right.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I'm going to ask a question if I may. Minister Collenette, Bill C-26 contained punitive or enforcement measures if the conditions of the merger were not complied with. Okay? Am I to understand that these penalties apply strictly to measures other than those stemming from the Official Languages Act?

Mr. David Collenette: I think that applies simply to the physical merger of the two airline companies, and not to the application of the Official Languages Act.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So the act governing Air Canada does not contain penalties if Air Canada does not comply with its obligations under the Official Languages Act. Is that correct? And there are not any either in the Official Languages Act.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No.

• 1615

Mr. Yvon Godin: So it is not forced to comply with it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If I understand correctly, it depends on their goodwill.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.)): I do not know to whom I should address my comments and questions, but I would like a response from both ministers.

Yesterday, we talked about the ideal situation, in other words a situation where Canadians can live and choose to travel in the language of their choice.

As an anglophone from Quebec, I really feel like I am caught between a rock and a hard place. My family is fundamentally francophone and I will defend their rights to the bitter end, as I would defend the rights of anglophones. How can we talk about a country that has two official languages?

[English]

David, we're supposed to have two official languages. We do not have two official languages if this government, and many governments before yours never, ever had this law applied.

Minister, I remember asking you at one other point about why we bother having an Official Languages Act. I asked you, Minister, if you would rather get rid of it than have it applied. Your response was, no, you would have the Official Languages Act obeyed. Mr. Minister, for thirty years this government and all Canadian governments have never forced anyone to obey the Official Languages Act. Why do you expect us to believe you will do it now all of a sudden?

Francophones are not second-class citizens. They have every right....

[Translation]

Ms. Robillard, I am speaking as a Quebecker, which is embarrassing: we are not second-class citizens. We have rights and if our Cabinet and our government are not in a position to ensure our rights are respected, what can this committee do? What are you doing with the Official Languages Act?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Madam Maheu, I must point out that I fully agree with you when you advocate the equality of both languages and the linguistic choice that our citizens make. You are well aware of that, Madam Maheu.

We are looking at what action can be taken if a federal institution does not comply with the requirements contained in the act. That is what I understood from Mr. Godin's remarks. We have told you, throughout these deliberations, that under the Official Languages Act, the only avenue is to go to the Commissioner of Official Languages who can submit a case directly to the Federal Court. We have told you that that is what is contained in the current act.

You asking me what action can be taken. I am telling you what the Official Languages Act contains. Through the commissioner, a case can end up in Federal Court. However, as the Minister of Transport said, the Air Canada Act does not contain any specific penalties for not complying with this act.

Generally speaking, we monitor what goes in all of our institutions that are required to comply with the act. When there are shortcomings, in most cases, the problem is identified by the person covered by the requirement. The problem is acknowledged and an attempt is made to determine how to deal with the problem and remedy it. The Secretariat is there to provide assistance, as is the Commissioner of Official Languages, but it is first and foremost a question of attitude on the part of the federal institution's senior management. Complying with the act must be part of the organization's culture. That is also important. We work in this context on a regular basis, Senator Maheu.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): With your permission, Ms. Robillard and Mr. Collenette, what can the Liberal government, that is in power in this country, do? What can be done to put an end to this abuse? I my opinion, not respecting our country's two official languages is abusive. If we do not amend the act to force people to comply, if we do not give the act more teeth, who will do it?

• 1620

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You are looking at the current means. Are we still talking about Air Canada, Madam Senator?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): We are talking about Air Canada. We are talking about a country that, in principle, has two official languages.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, yes. You are not telling me anything new. I am fully aware that I live in a country that has two official languages, does it not?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Yes, fine. What are we going to do to put our two official languages into practice?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Madam Senator, I will not repeat what I have just said and what action is possible. Your committee can deem these measures unsatisfactory and recommend something else to the government. That is your privilege as a committee.

I told you what action is possible at present. A case can go to the commissioner or directly to court. That can happen in certain cases. I think that our commissioner is someone who will go to court when necessary. That is the action we can take under the current act.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Minister, you have the floor.

Mr. David Collenette: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words.

We have penalties. As for security, we have the force of law with the Aeronautics Act. If instructions and procedures are not provided in both official languages, and if it is a matter of security, Air Canada can be penalized.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: For how long?

Mr. David Collenette: It seems to me that the problem we are discussing today deals more with service to passengers and marketing, for example. In English, we talk about on-board service. We are not presently talking about passenger safety.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. Senator Rivest, you have the floor.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): On the topic of sanctions, it is a bit odd and extremely disappointing to hear that. Obviously, in the departments, people in charge of enforcing official languages always have the means to do so, but if the act does not contain any sanctions that can apply to Air Canada since it has been privatized... Mr. Robillard mentioned the possibility of potential recourse later on. Would recourse to the Federal Court apply solely to government organizations or would it also apply to Air Canada?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, it would also apply to Air Canada.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Without intervening through legislation that still remains the prerogative of the government even with respect to a private corporation, the fact remains that Air Canada often calls upon your services, as Minister of Transport, and asks for financial contributions from the government for its operations. Given the political importance of linguistic duality in Canada, the very serious complaints that have been raised and the skepticism of users with respect to how Air Canada applies the Official Languages Act, could you not at that time and rightly so, say: “No money without bilingualism”?

Mr. David Collenette: The government's policy is not to subsidize private companies. The government gave Air Canada $100 million after the events of September 11 solely to compensate for losses Air Canada incurred. In general, the government does not give subsidies to private companies.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: They also ask you for all kinds of other things, however.

Mr. David Collenette: That is possible.

An hon. member: You have, however, said no.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): There are still several other people who want to speak. Can you stay a few more minute? Next we have Mr. Binet. Mr. Binet, I would ask you to be quick.

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Good afternoon, Ms. Robillard and Mr. Collenette.

We have met with various groups since our return, following the elections. With respect to French at Air Canada, it is clear that everything we have heard during our meetings is far from being positive.

Yesterday we met with Mr. Milton and his team. We can see that they make a good team. I told him about a witness we had met who had conducted a survey on official languages at the request of the committee. With respect to official languages, he told us that we would not see any real change for another 15 years. Fifteen years is unacceptable.

I also told him that as president of the company, it was his responsibility to instill this philosophy in his company. I asked him to take extraordinary action. When I talk about extraordinary action, it implies that his action will be felt not only within his organization and among this employees, but that it will also extend throughout Canada. That way, people will be able to tell Air Canada employees that that is precisely what they expected, that it must be that way, that that is the philosophy of their president who represents Air Canada.

• 1625

Would you be a position, as minister, to demand that type of visible Canada-wide action? I am talking about something more than complying with regulations that must be complied with it at any rate. Ms. Dyane Adam can take a muscled approach, but you, as minister, can you tell Mr. Milton that he must absolutely adopt a line of conduct that will make it possible to resolve this situation?

I can tell you that here on the Official Languages Committee we work well as a team and we will not give up, that is clear.

Mr. David Collenette: The fact is that we can suggest changes with respect to the application of the Official Languages Act of Canada, but we do not have the legislative authority to strengthen it, and that is a fact of life, except with respect to security, as I have already explained.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Would it not be possible, of your own accord, for the three of you to meet—Mr. Milton, Ms. Robillard and Mr. Collenette—and decide to strive to exert more pressure? Yes?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Look—

Mr. Gérard Binet: In my opinion, that would be the right approach, because a company's philosophy always depends on the president, and in my opinion, Mr. Milton has the talent to move on this. I saw them leave yesterday; they really make a good team and, again in my opinion, Mr. Milton is capable of managing his company very easily.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Your message is interesting in that you are saying that where attitudes and organizational culture are concerned, there must be a top-down approach. And as you say, he is the head of the company, so, he should—

Mr. Gérard Binet: ... be in the pilot's seat.

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

Senator Raymond C. Setlakwe (Les Laurentides, Lib.): The prevailing opinion here seems to be that without sanctions no progress will be made in this area. Is this a line of thinking that the government has already shared or is prepared to endorse?

Mr. David Collenette: There are penalties under security, but not with respect to passenger service.

Mr. Pigeon will add something.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: Under Part X of the Official Languages Act, the Court can render an order when there is an offence under the act.

I will read the provision to the effect that... Subsection 77(4) of the Official Languages Act authorizes the Court to render the orders it considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

In some cases, according to what I have been told, damages have been awarded when federal institutions have been found guilty of not honouring their commitments. The specialists that I consulted told me about a Federal Court case, the Leblanc case. The court examined if it was possible, based on this subsection, to award damages, and it did so. It even looked at whether it was possible to award damages that will serve as an example, which it did not do in that case, without however ruling out that possibility. I simply wanted to add this clarification.

In my opinion, I think the reason why the Minister has said that the Air Canada Public Participation Act does not contain sanctions is because the purpose of section 10 is simply to extend the scope of the Official Languages Act. Parts IX and X of the Official Languages Act contain implementation mechanisms, which are the same for Air Canada as they are for federal institutions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): How much time do we have left, Mr. and Madame Minister?

Mr. David Collenette: I will have to leave.

• 1630

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Dear colleagues, allow me to ask two or three quick questions, even if it means obtaining the answers later. When a government drafts legislation on any topic, is it customary to rely on the goodwill of the people who are given the mandate to implement the government wishes? When the government or Parliament adopts an act that reflects what it wants, if the act stipulates that an institution must do one thing or another, is it customary to rely on the goodwill of the people who are responsible for implementing the act, or would it not be more customary to including sanctions in the event that these wishes are not respected?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I am not a lawyer, but I suppose that is the case. I think that my colleague is in a better position to answer that than I am, because basically—

Mr. David Collenette: I am not a lawyer.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Seriously, the Official Languages Act contains the legal recourse that we've just explained, that Mr. Pigeon just explained. Once a complaint has been lodged with the commissioner, the complaint can be taken to the court and there may be a subsequent court order. I will not name the departments that have been brought in line and that have required to take action as a result, but this recourse has been used very effectively. It exists, but it is part of the Official Languages Act. It is not part of the Air Canada Act.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): With respect to Air Canada, Mr. Minister, you say that for matters regarding security and respect of official languages, sanctions can be imposed, is that not right?

Mr. David Collenette: Yes, but not under the Air Canada Act, under the Aeronautics Act.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Okay. Sanctions exist for not respecting linguistic duality.

Mr. David Collenette: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Have penalties been placed on any carriers in the country?

Mr. David Collenette: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... with results.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: I think that there have been very few complaints. We explained, in the letter that you mentioned, that when a corporation receives penalties, administrative penalties or administrative monetary penalties, its name is posted on the Transport Canada Internet site that publishes offences and the implementation of acts and regulations under the Aeronautics Act.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will check. I would like to go back to something else that really struck me. Earlier, someone said that the government was not responsible for guaranteeing the percentage, or the ratio between employees of francophone and anglophone origin. I thought that was one of the government's responsibilities.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The terms used may have lead to confusion, Mr. Chairman. I said that our oversight responsibilities are such that we monitor parts 4, 5 and 6, which deal with equitable participation. Monitoring that part of the act is part of our responsibilities.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If we were to learn, because we will have more precise statistics from now on, that Air Canada is not complying with this part of the Official Languages Act, what steps could or would Treasury Board take to remedy the situation?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: In a case like that, we would not act on our own. Action would be in collaboration with the Commissioner of Official Languages, who also receives the report on equitable participation. For all federal institutions, including Air Canada, as soon as a shortcoming of this type is proven and documented, we sit down together to try to find a solution and establish an action plan, and to decide how to resolve the problem. We proceed that way each time.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau, you can ask one quick question.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The Canadian people would probably want both of you to be Minister of Revenue. I can imagine you saying that you insist the people respect the Income Tax Act. If you were minister of road safety, you would strongly insist people drive 100 km/h on highways, and if they did not do that, you would prepare an action plan to eventually lower the speed limit a bit. I think that the general public would greatly appreciate such open-mindedness on the part of a minister and would consider the government a lot more liberal.

• 1635

The way complaints are processed is now quite clear. If we do not receive an answer on the aircraft door, we write to Mr. Collenette. If we do not receive an answer on the glass of water, we write to Ms. Robillard. If we do not receive an answer...

Here is my question. I would like to allow you to follow your idea through, as you suggest Mr. Godin do. You have clearly showed us that the act does not work. As for me, I talked about a form, but it was perhaps too simple. Ms. Robillard and Mr. Collenette, give me an example of one concrete step that could be taken to improve the application of this act. If the idea of a form is too simple, come up with another one. Name one concrete thing that could be done.

Mr. David Collenette: I am making a note of your suggestion.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... a little respect. We are working well.

Mr. Yvon Godin: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes. Yes. I think we are making headway. Are there any other comments?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It is unfortunate that this tone is being used, because I think we are all very concerned with the problems we are facing. As I said in the beginning, I am grateful for all the work that this committee has done, and I think that some progress has been made. The problem has been formally acknowledged by the president of the company, who appeared before you yesterday. Perhaps I am mistaken, but to the best of my knowledge, it was the first time that the president of the company publicly acknowledged the problem, as part of the parliamentary proceedings, and made a commitment to table an action plan for 2002 and to sign an agreement with the Commissioner of Official Languages to settle the problem with the assistance of the unions. I am not saying that the situation is perfect. I am just saying that progress has been made.

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

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Collenette, Madam Robillard, I am under the impression that the airline industry is using smaller and smaller aircraft rather than large aircraft in the east, in the west and in the north. After the discussion we had yesterday with Mr. Milton, I am also under the impression that he has too many unilingual employees at the top and that he is losing bilingual employees at the bottom. That is what I retained from what he told us yesterday.

[English]

He's top-heavy on unilinguals and very light on bilinguals, and he has a hell of a problem with that. Do you understand that? Am I reading too many things into this? Maybe you could correct me if I am.

Mr. David Collenette: Let me have your question first.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: He told us yesterday that he had an action plan. One of his assistants told us that the action plan would be ready by the end of the winter, probably before March. I assume that the action plan will address consultations with Treasury Board and the department of Transport. How can the problem be resolved?

Yesterday, Mr. Milton seemed to want to ask us for money to help him train his employees. Personally, I was not very sympathetic to that. I said that I had been hearing about that since 1971. I looked at my annual reports. Language training has been mentioned since 1971. He will not convince me that he has not had time to change his hiring practices. At any rate, if you do plan to give money for training, think about it seriously. That is the comment I wanted to make.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Godin, one last question. We will wrap up after that.

Mr. Yvon Godin: This last question is for you, Mr. Collenette. Earlier on you mentioned security. Is security provided only when the airplane takes off and lands? Is there security between take-off and landing? When I get on a plane where there is only one anglophone flight attendant, the flight attendant puts on a cassette in French to tell me to buckle my seat belt and all of those good things. To that point, there is no problem. But if the plane starts to go down, who is going to explain the safety procedures in French?

• 1640

Mr. David Collenette: I think you are right. But security covers all on-board security, mechanical aspects and services. I think you are right.

Mr. Yvon Godin: One other very short simple question.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You had the last word yesterday. I'm going to give the last word today to our new senator, and committee member, Madam Léger.

Senator Viola Léger (New Brunswick, Lib.): My first question deals with the lay-offs that have occurred. We have been told that this applied to the younger employees. Prior to the merger between Air Canada and Canadian, did Canadian come under the same legislation as Air Canada?

Mr. David Collenette: No.

Senator Viola Léger: No. That is perhaps why now, all of a sudden, the numbers went from 20,000 to 40,000 and that they now have a smaller workforce. That must be the reason, and not just the events of September 11.

Mr. David Collenette: It was a challenge for Air Canada to merge the two companies when one fell under the Official Languages Act but the other did not.

Senator Viola Léger: That is the reason. Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Robillard and Mr. Collenette, thank you. If members of the committee have other questions, we will compile them and send them to you in writing. Thank you for appearing.