;

LANG Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, July 24, 2002

0940

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.))

Mrs. Diana Monnet (Assistant Secretary, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

0945

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard (Director, Policy Integration and Corporate Issues, Department of Transport)

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

0950

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard

Mr. Michel Gaudreau (Acting Director, Commercial and Business Aviation, Department of Transport)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

0955

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.)

Mrs. Diana Monnet

1000

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1005

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Diana Monnet

1010

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Yvon Godin

1015

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orleans, Lib.)

1020

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Diana Monnet

1025

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Joint Chair

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC)

1030

Mrs. Carole Bidal (Counsel, Department of Justice, Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

Mr. Jacques Pigeon (Senior General Counsel and Head, Department of Justice, Legal Services, Department of Transport)

1035

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

Mr. Jacques Pigeon

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

1040

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr.Ghislain Blanchard

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Jacques Pigeon

1045

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)

Mrs. Diana Monnet

1050

Mr. Bernard Patry

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Bernard Patry

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Bernard Patry

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1055

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Ms. Jacqueline Loranger (Official Languages Advisor, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Jacqueline Loranger

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1100

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mrs. Diana Monnet

1105

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1110

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Jacqueline Loranger

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Jacqueline Loranger

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1115

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1120

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi (Senior Official Languages Advisor, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1125

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard

1130

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

1135

Mr. Jacques Pigeon

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Carole Bidal

1140

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michel Gaudreau

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mrs. Diana Monnet

CANADA

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 048

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, July 24, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0940)

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)) : With your permission, we're going to begin our work. We have a few items on the agenda this morning. The first is a consideration of the government response to the seventh report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages concerning Air Canada.

Second, you are aware of yesterday's announcement. We were supposed to update the situation of La Soirée du hockey, but we could perhaps give ourselves a pat on the back.

Third, we will be sitting in camera on two items, one being the adoption of a report on immigration. We conducted hearings in the spring, but, for lack of time, were unable to adopt the report. Second, we will have a discussion on the O'Keefe decision concerning the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament, and we also may do a round table on the committee's future work.

First, allow me to apologize on the committee's behalf to the people who have had to travel twice. Our policy is to try to meet in the Centre Block, but, believe it or not, we had a great deal of difficulty finding a room in the Centre Block in mid-summer, as the rooms are used for other purposes relating to summer tourist activities and so on. So we apologize for that. We also apologize for the delay in the distribution of documents. Since our usual clerk was not here, we had trouble breaking in our system. I understand that the documents which were to be distributed on Monday were not distributed until yesterday. I apologize on behalf of the committee administration and hope that this won't be too inconvenient for you.

That said, I invite Mrs. Diana Monnet to take the floor and to introduce her colleagues. We will then move on to a question and answer period in the usual order and will subsequently proceed with consideration of the other subjects. Is that all right? Are there any questions?

I thank all committee members present for being here in the middle of the summer. We are apparently not used to meeting during the summer.

Mrs. Monnet.

Mrs. Diana Monnet (Assistant Secretary, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): First I would like to apologize. I'm one of the people who went to the West Block.

Good day, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. I would like to begin by thanking you for inviting me and my colleagues from Transport Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat to present verbally the government's response to the report on Air Canada your committee tabled last February, and to answer your questions.

First, I would like to introduce my colleagues from Transport Canada. They are Ghislain Blanchard, Director, Policy Integration and Corporate Issues; Michel Gaudreau, Acting Director, Commercial and Business Aviation; and Jacques Pigeon, Senior General Counsel and Head of Legal Services. My Treasury Board Secretariat colleagues are: Carole Bidal, our Legal Counsel, and Joseph Ricciardi, Senior Official Languages Advisor. Once Jacqueline Loranger has found her way--she was also at the West Block--she will be joining us.

I would like to say that the Government of Canada welcomes the report on Air Canada by the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages and is sensitive to the recommendations made and the questions raised in it. They reflect your concerns that Air Canada truly make every effort to meet its language obligations.

[English]

The government has carefully studied your recommendations and questions and has prepared its response on the basis of the following three fundamental principles. First, Air Canada must fully comply with all its language obligations under the existing regime. Second, out of a concern for consistency and equity, we cannot impose on the corporation language obligations or a regime of sanctions that are stricter than those imposed on all institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. Third, we must respect the roles that are already provided in the Official Languages Act for implementing the act. Each of the players in this matter, Air Canada, the Minister of Transport, the President of the Treasury Board, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the courts, has been assigned a specific role that must be respected.

[Translation]

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the respective roles of some of the key players.

The main role of Transport Canada is to fulfill its obligations concerning the safety rules or standards to be observed by air carriers, including Air Canada, particularly for the messages concerning safety on board aircraft, as stipulated in the Aeronautics Act. Because the Minister of Transport is responsible for the national air transportation policy, when Air Canada was privatized, and later when Air Canada acquired Canadian Airlines Ltd., he took the initiative of making certain that Air Canada, as a former federal institution, was subject to a language regime appropriate to its corporate structure.

Under paragraph 46(2)(d) of Part VIII of the Official Languages Act, the Treasury Board is responsible for the general direction and coordination of the policies and programs of the Government of Canada in the area of the official languages:

(2) The Treasury Board may [...]

(d) monitor and audit federal institutions in respect of which it has responsibility for their compliance with policies, directives and regulations of Treasury Board or the Governor in Council relating to the official languages of Canada.

Here I would like to point out that every institution subject to the OLA has the duty to meet the requirements of the act in carrying out its mandate as is many times stated in the Official Languages Act.

As for the Commissioner of Official Languages, the mandate conferred on her by the Official Languages Act is:

56. (1) [...] to take all actions and measures within her authority to ensure recognition of the status of each of the official languages and compliance with the spirit and intent of the act in the administration of the affairs of federal institutions, in particular the advancement of English and French in Canadian society.

Also, the Commissioner of Official Languages may carry out investigations, conduct special studies and submit reports; she may also seek a remedy before a court under Part X of the act. The Federal Court may issue orders when there has been a violation of the act, and specifically it “may grant such remedy as it considers appropriate and just in the circumstances”.

Thank you. We will now try to answer your questions and clarify matters.

¿ (0945)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Does anyone else wish to take the floor?

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard (Director, Policy Integration and Corporate Issues, Department of Transport): It's a joint statement.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: We prepared it together.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I hoped that someone would want to contradict you, but that's not the case.

Mr. Sauvageau, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Good morning, everyone. It's surprising to be here on July 24. Please excuse me if you have already answered my questions in the documents you sent us beforehand. Some of the documents, the response by the Department of Transport among others, I did not receive until this morning. I'm going to ask you for confirmation on a few points.

On recommendation 13, you tell us:

The Committee recommends that the Minister of Transport instruct his Department's Civil Aviation Directorate to ensure that safety briefings presented by cabin crews conform...

Recommendation 13 is aimed at your department. There are a host of responsibilities that fall to one, the other, no one and everyone, but recommendation 13 is intended for the Department of Transport, and I'm going to ask you questions on that.

In your response, you write:

The Minister of Transport intends [...] to ensure that information concerning security is presented and understood in both official languages so as to provide for the safety of all persons travelling on Canadian aircraft...

Your responsibility is to ensure that information is not transmitted solely by means of cassettes, as my friend Yvon Godin would say, and that, in an on-board emergency, passengers can receive services and briefings in both official languages. Is the response by the Department of Transport to be understood that way?

¿ (0950)

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: Perhaps Mr. Gaudreau, who is the Director of Commercial Aviation, should answer that question.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau (Acting Director, Commercial and Business Aviation, Department of Transport): Our response to recommendation 13 stipulates that, in on-board emergencies, briefings made to passengers must be made in both official languages.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: How do you intend to ensure that's the case? In your response to another recommendation, you say that the Minister of Transport “believes that a number of processes should be allowed to run their course”.

Is it Air Canada's good will and laudable intentions that reassure you? You say that the Department of Transport intends to ensure that information on safety is communicated in both official languages. How are you going to ensure that? Through written follow-up? By putting people on board the aircraft? Through penalties? How do you intend to ensure this recommendation is complied with?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: We are ensuring it through the Aeronautics Act. We also have inspectors on board all the aircraft of Air Canada and other companies to ensure that the requirements of the Aeronautics Act are being met by the airlines, including Air Canada.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Were your inspectors there before July 2002?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: Yes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So they were there last year, and we heard all kinds of horror stories here in the committee. What's in place now and what wasn't last month or last year? What's different now? The inspectors were there last year, but they did not enforce the act. Air Canada tells us that we should now trust it. Is that assurance the only thing all of us have here, or is there something else?

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: Perhaps I should clarify one point. A distinction should be drawn between the system that applies to Air Canada under the Official Languages Act and the safety system that applies to all air carriers, including Air Canada, under the Aeronautics Act.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Suppose I'm on board an aircraft and the aircraft crashes. I don't have my little notebook, and I don't know whether it's the Treasury Board, the Commissioner of Official Languages or Air Canada that is responsible. Can I obtain safety information in both official languages, regardless of the system or the company?

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: As regards the safety briefings, the standards are dictated by the Aeronautics Act, which specifically states the obligations of all air carriers. As to Air Canada specifically, as an institution subject to the Official Languages Act, it must also provide services and communications in both official languages in all kinds of circumstances.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: And if it doesn't, how do you intend to ensure that the information is communicated?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: The Canadian Air Safety Regulations require that briefings to passengers be made in both official languages. There are also pictorial safety features cards; if anything is set down in writing, it must be in both official languages. At Transport Canada, not only the inspectors, but also the some 4,000 persons who work there take the official languages very seriously. If someone perceives that the two languages are not being used on every Air Canada aircraft, he files a complaint which is forwarded to my office. We oversee the act's implementation. We talk to the airline and we impose a fine.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Pardon me for interrupting. If someone sees that the act is not being complied with, in principle, the complaint won't be forwarded to your office. All that was explained to us.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: If it's a complaint concerning safety, not official languages, it is forwarded to my office.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It seems to me that, if the flight attendants and cabin personnel are capable of providing safety service in both official languages, they can provide all services in both official languages.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: The service does not at all concern...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You merely ensure that the personnel working on board an aircraft, particularly an Air Canada aircraft, are capable of giving safety instructions in both official languages because that's your jurisdiction and your responsibility, and because you intend to ensure that the act is complied with. That's a minimum. It's a certainty that customer service...

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: That's determined by the government. Safety information is standardized. It's not given by means of cassettes, but standardized briefings are given orally. The act and regulations do not provide for any obligation to provide non-standardized briefings. So under our regulatory system, we have obligations that involve standardized briefings.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: These are standardized briefings prepared prior to departure. There are no regulations for in-flight emergencies.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: The safety features cards cover all aspects of emergencies.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: They're cards. They have to be read.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: Yes. I would like to point out that one of the most effective evacuations in Canada took place aboard a Canadian Airlines DC-10 a few years ago. The people on board spoke neither English nor French, and the flight attendants communicated with them by gestures. The aircraft was evacuated in a very, very safe manner. So I am not reluctant to say that the safety features cards, the actions of flight attendants and the briefings given to passengers in both official languages cover all aspects of on-board emergencies.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Before departure.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: Before departure. In British Columbia, passengers spoke only Mandarin, and the flight officers made gestures and gave the necessary orders. Everyone followed the flight attendants' orders and the aircraft was very, very efficiently evacuated.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Why is there an act, if it can be done by means of gestures?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: I'm talking about air safety, and, in the case I'm telling you about, I saw that air security was very efficiently ensured.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We could amend it and say it doesn't necessarily have to exist. In any case, you haven't answered my question. The Department of Transport intends to ensure that the information is communicated in both official languages. If that information has already been communicated because it is contained in standardized briefings, you don't have to ensure anything.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: We ensure that that continues.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Are you satisfied with the state of affairs prior to the study by the official languages committee with regard to safety questions and your responsibility with regard to Air Canada? Do you want to ensure that situation continues. Is that correct?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: Precisely, that's correct.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

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

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you.

I want to come back to page 2 of the text, where you say:

Out of a concern for consistency and equity, we cannot impose on the corporation language obligations or a regime of sanctions that are stricter than those imposed on all institutions subject to the Official Languages Act.

What do you mean? Who asked that life be made more difficult for Air Canada? We simply asked that the act be implemented.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: If I'm not mistaken, the report recommends that the possibility of sanctions be considered, along with the possibility that the subsidiaries be subject not only to Part IV of the act, but to all its parts. So, as no fines or sanctions are being imposed on the departments, we don't think it would be fair to impose any on Air Canada. As regards the subsidiaries, which were never federal institutions, the Air Canada Public Participation Act states it clearly. Previously, their obligations were stated in section 25, if they acted on behalf of Air Canada, but, to clarify that, it was stated in the Air Canada Public Participation Act that the subsidiaries must comply with Part IV concerning service to the public.

If we went beyond that, we would be asking them more than is asked of a federal institution in similar circumstances.

À (1000)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I understand, but in what respect is it more strict than what the law requires? I don't understand the word “strict”.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: The act exists and is applied to Air Canada under the system set out in the Air Canada Public Participation Act. In that sense, it's equal for everyone.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to be clearer. No audit is conducted to ensure that what's done at the Treasury Board is consistent with the act.

The Commissioner of Official Languages doesn't conduct audits. She is an ombudsperson; she defends people whose rights have been infringed. Does the Treasury Board conduct language audits?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: We conducted some audits. In 2000, we audited the seven largest airports, and there were specific recommendations for Air Canada. In response to complaints, the Commissioner also conducted audits and investigations; she can also conduct special studies. In addition, every year, Air Canada must report to Treasury Board on its operations and on the progress it has made in the previous year. We study that. We then communicate with Air Canada and monitor progress made at Air Canada. It should be noted that we have just received its report and that it has promised us an interim report in August on progress made in implementing the action plan it presented to the committee.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So you receive an annual report from Air Canada.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: That's correct.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: But that report isn't made public. It's a report that you study in-house.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: A copy of it is presented here to the committee. So it's considered as being in the public domain. We use that information to prepare the annual report of Ms. Robillard, the Treasury Board President, to the committee.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Has the committee studied a report? Have we received a report?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I don't remember seeing one, but we'll check.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: You receive copies of all the reports we receive every year; the Commissioner of Official Languages receives them as well.

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

Mrs. Diana Monnet: I've just been told that a copy of the report is here.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You say we receive copies, Madam, but Jean-Robert Gauthier and the members and senators of this committee have never seen them. I've been here from the start, and I want to know whether you conduct audits. If you do, can you send a copy or two to the clerk when it arrives?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes, of course.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Could you also send a copy to the senators?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes, of course. The findings of the airport audits have been posted on our Web site for more than a year. The final report is on our Web site.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I believe it was Mr. Gaudreau who said that you had fined certain persons for violations of or non-compliance with the act. When was the last time you fined anyone and who did you fine?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: Royal Aviation was fined $500 approximately two years ago. There are two cases in court, one against Air Canada and the other against another airline, because they did not provide on-board service in both official languages. In one of the cases, our head of compliance was on board the aircraft and observed that the briefings were not made to passengers in both official languages. That's actually before the court, and we are certain we will be fining the company. We can impose a fine from $200 to $1,200. With Transport Canada, we don't seek to impose fines, but rather to change the philosophy of airline operators.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I understand. It's much better to convince than to impose fines.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: Exactly.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Can you give us a list of the airlines that have been fined over the past two or three years? Can you send it to the clerk?

À (1005)

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: If you wish, yes. In many cases, people complain against airlines, but we don't fine them because, when we take steps to enforce the act, the person does not appear or does not provide the testimony we need to continue. A lot of complaints are made, but don't result in a fine.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: May I ask a final question? The Department of Transport is not solely concerned with air problems, but also with maritime transport. Are there official languages problems in maritime transport, for example? Do all companies engaged in maritime transport in the West and in the East comply with the Official Languages Act? Do they feel comfortable when you are on their boats?

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: Unfortunately, senator, we can't answer you on that specific point. Mr. Gaudreau is very competent with regard to civil aviation, but I don't believe he can answer you concerning the maritime field. If you have any specific questions on the subject, we could send you a detailed response. I'm sorry.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: My question concerns the ferries shuttling between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, between New Brunswick and Newfoundland or, in the West, between Vancouver Island and the mainland, for example. Are language directives complied with to the letter, or do you have enough complaints from travellers to justify fining people who operate a ferry and do not meet their linguistic obligations?

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: On that specific point, Mr. Chairman, we could send you a response because we are not really qualified to answer that question with any certainty. Rather than mislead the committee, I will try to obtain a definite answer to that question.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You could answer me in writing.

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: All right.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will make sure the answer is distributed.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome you in this beautiful month of July. I won't say that's the case in New Brunswick because it's been cold there for almost the entire month of July. It was good to come here and get some sun.

Mr. Gaudreau, you seemed to say that a fine was levied. Who was aboard the aircraft when the complaint was made?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: No fine has yet been levied. One of our inspectors, the head of compliance, was aboard an aircraft. It wasn't an Air Canada aircraft, but an Air Canada Jazz plane. He was aboard the aircraft and observed that the briefing was not made in both official languages. He filed the complaint against the company himself. We know there will be a good witness when it comes to imposing a fine.

Mr. Yvon Godin: How many other inspectors paid by the government or taxpayers have filed complaints that have led to fines? Has it been necessary for a manager to do it?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: I don't know how many have filed complaints, but I can assure you that any Transport Canada inspector who is aboard an aircraft and sees that both official languages are not being used files a complaint. We then follow up.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, that's not my question. How many complaints by these inspectors have resulted in fines?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: I don't know.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Could we have that information, please?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: Of course.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Ms. Monnet, on page 4 of your presentation, you say:

Here I would like to point out that every institution subject to the Official Languages Act has the duty to meet the requirements of the act in carrying out its mandate, as is many times stated in the Official Languages Act.

What are you referring to?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: To the 179 institutions subject to the Official Languages Act.

À (1010)

Mr. Yvon Godin: Are you referring to Air Canada in particular?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes, Air Canada is one of those institutions.

Mr. Yvon Godin: All right. The committee made recommendations to the Government of Canada, not to Air Canada. We made them to the government and we asked it to respond to them. Are you throwing in the towel and telling us to deal with Air Canada and the Official Languages Act?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Absolutely not.

Mr. Yvon Godin: In fact, that's what is being said.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: No.

Mr. Yvon Godin: “Here I would like to point out that every institution subject to the OLA has the duty to meet the requirements...”

Mrs. Diana Monnet: That's correct, and they are also responsible for their actions. We are here to coordinate and we can monitor. We work very closely with Air Canada.

Mr. Yvon Godin: What's the point in monitoring? I'll give you the example I always use. I drive on the 417 and the police, who are there to monitor me, let me go by. There's not much point in that. When police officers monitor me and I break the law, they fine me. Our committee asked the government whether it was prepared to require Air Canada, which is subject to the Official Languages Act, to comply with the act. In view of your response, I don't believe the government is prepared to do that.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: The Official Languages Act makes no provision for fines. In the case before us, the fine option is open only when there has been a safety violation, as we said a while ago.

Now, when there has been a violation and a complaint, and the Commissioner of Official Languages decides to put the case before the Federal Court, the Court may assess a fine. That's a possibility. It's up to the Federal Court to consider the case and to decide. The Treasury Board does not have the power to levy a fine.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Coming back to Mr. Gaudreau, I was disappointed when he used the example of the flight attendant who, in an emergency, used gestures to give safety instructions to people who did not speak English or French. I say that because our committee's mandate is to ensure compliance with official languages. It's not to find examples of how things work in other countries. In our country, there are two official languages. From the moment a flight attendant speaks with passengers, for safety or other reasons, he must do so in both languages. Cassettes are all well and good, but... When you take a plane, you know the procedures and standards. You know the cassette that is played. Based on the information we obtained from flight attendants, there is a small binder in which procedures are outlined in English only, the reason being that it's easier and therefore there's less risk of confusion among flight attendants. If flight attendants speak both languages, how can they be confused? Why isn't the manual in French instead? Why is it in English?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: The manual for flight attendants?

Mr. Yvon Godin: These are the emergency instructions for when the aircraft is in trouble: place your head between your legs, lean forward and so on.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: With regard to air safety requirements, the passenger briefings are done before take-off, and there are cards on the safety measures that must be followed. These are two requirements of the Aeronautics Act. We ensure that all passengers, regardless of the language they speak, whether it's English, French, Spanish or any other language, understand those instructions. My mandate is to ensure that the air safety instructions are given to passengers in the language they speak. When there is an on-board emergency, they can refer to the card on safety measures and the flight attendants can ensure that everyone understands them.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't agree with that. I'm a frequent flyer on Air Canada aircraft, and the flight attendants tell me that, in an emergency, they are ordered to speak English only with passengers who are on the aircraft. You should be able to answer my question or to find someone who can answer it.

I think it's more dangerous when the aircraft is descending than when it's climbing. [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...and I've never heard it.

According to the Canadian air safety regulations and the Official Languages Act, may the flight attendants communicate with me in French during an emergency?

À (1015)

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: I rely on the Canadian regulations and the safety features cards. I was an aircraft accident investigator for seven years. I've worked in this profession, as an aircraft captain, for 28 years, and I'm very concerned about air safety. I feel comfortable in telling you that the briefings given to passengers, the air safety features cards and the actions of the flight attendants cover all the necessary aspects of safety on board an aircraft.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: I would add that, if there is any communication other than that provided for by our colleagues at the Department of Transport in their response, it is communication with the public, and that's covered by the Official Languages Act and the regulations which require service to the public in an entire set of circumstances of which you are aware and on which I could elaborate if you wish.

As to the instructions given by flight attendants in English only, I find that quite surprising. I can't answer on behalf of Air Canada, but I'm going to look into it. This is a work instrument, and the airline is subject to Part V of the act. So that shouldn't be the case. It may be that it's a work instrument of Canadian airlines which was unfortunately not replaced. I'm going to look for an explanation on that. I don't have it personally.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, Air Nova wasn't Canadian. In addition, I can send you the Air Canada communication requesting that Transport Canada translate it because Air Canada had not yet agreed to translate it into French. I can assure you I've done my work in this regard. I know that the part concerning the measures that should be taken in emergencies was in English only and that the flight attendants had received an order to speak in English only because it was easier. I say that that's a violation of the Official Languages Act.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: I say it too. I'm going to look into it and we will give you a reply.

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: In general, in an emergency, that doesn't apply to all air carriers. That applies only to Air Canada, which is subject to the Official Languages Act. I wanted to make that distinction.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Bellemare, I believe you had asked to speak.

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

It's clear from today's proceedings that there is little concern for services in both official languages; the main, if not the exclusive, concern is safety aboard aircraft. When it comes to safety, we can start talking about the two official languages.

With regard to safety, I would like to show just how ridiculous the act and regulations are.

First of all, the pilot and co-pilot are not required to give us safety instructions in both official languages; the carrier is thinking solely of functional safety. Standardized messages are the norm. As for non-standardized messages, there is no concern for that at your department. You say you fined Royal Aviation $500. That seems to be a historic fact for you. I have made a calculation. If the aircraft carried 250 passengers who had paid $1,000 each, the company received $250,000. It was fined $500. The fine can vary from $200 to $1,200.

In my opinion, that kind of fine gives the company permission to do what it wants. It's as though, in the municipality of Ottawa, motorists were fined $1 for going through a red light, whereas the fine in other cities is $200 or $300. If you levy a $1 fine on people who go through red lights, a lot of them are going to go through red lights. When an aircraft of an airline carries 250 passengers who have paid $1,000 each, and you fine that company $500, you are giving the company permission to do what it wants. If it doesn't get caught, it saves $500. The worst fine it might have to pay would be equivalent to the price of a single ticket: $1,200.

Don't you find it ridiculous to levy such a small fine in relation to a security issue? You're giving the company permission to do what it wants.

À (1020)

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: I would like to answer your question, Mr. Bellemare. We are limited by the Aeronautics Act: that's the maximum fine that can be levied on a company. But we're not trying so much to levy fines as to change the airline's philosophy. We talk with the airlines. If there is an air safety problem, the idea is not simply to ensure the act is implemented. Transport Canada can suspend the company's operating licence. If there is something serious enough to compromise their safety, the fine is not the final step. We can suspend the airline's operating licence.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: So your mission is to change to airline's philosophy strictly in the safety field, not in the area of service to the Canadian community.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: Precisely.

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

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Our mandate is not to change the airline's culture, but this is an objective set by Air Canada which is emphasized in the report the company submitted. It's going to try to underscore the importance of that in all circumstances, particularly when it comes to safety, but also in other circumstances. I would like to repeat what Senator Gauthier said a moment ago, that it is much more effective to try to convince than to impose fines.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: On page 2 of your presentation, you say:

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: But there are no sanctions. Why do you talk about sanctions when there aren't any?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Because the committee recommended in its report that we consider the possibility of imposing sanctions.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I would like an explanation. You say a little further on:

...[the Minister of Transport] took the initiative of making certain that Air Canada, as a former federal institution, was subject to a language regime appropriate to its corporate structure.

What does that mean?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: That means that Air Canada is responsible for complying with the Official Languages Act and for ensuring that its subsidiaries act on behalf of it. Air Canada is responsible for complying with the act and is subject to all parts of the act, whereas the subsidiaries, as I said a moment ago, under section 25, are subject to the act solely with regard to service to the public, in view of the fact that they were not federal institutions at the outset and were acting for Air Canada.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: At the end, on page 4, you say:

As for the Commissioner of Official Languages, the mandate conferred on her by the Official Languages Act is to take all actions and measures within her authority to ensure recognition of the status of each of the official languages and compliance with the spirit and intent of the Official Languages Act...

How can you ensure compliance with the spirit of the act when there are no sanctions?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: By emphasizing the importance of the act and the purpose of the act, by having the act accepted by the employees in question, who recognize that it's a Canadian value related to something very important for our country. So we first try to convince people to comply with the act. Otherwise the act is there to clarify details. The Official Languages Act does not provide for sanctions apart from the opportunity afforded the Federal Court to levy a fine.

À (1025)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I have one final question, Mr. Chairman.

If Senator Gauthier heard, he would say that, since 1972, there have only been pious wishes. We're trying to change the culture or the philosophy of the organizations providing services by writing nice memos to them asking them to behave. We don't penalize them.

Do you believe that the Treasury Board should have the right to impose sanctions and that the Department of Transport should impose sanctions--I'm looking for a polite way of saying it--that are not ridiculous like the fines of $200 to $1,200 it currently levies?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: We have chosen to enforce the act through a positive approach. We want to make the act accepted and make the institutions understand why it is there. We believe that's in the interests of all Canadians.

You say that, for some years now, there have been only pious wishes. I know it's discouraging when Air Canada tells us that it's bilingual personnel has fallen from 60% to 39% since the merger. So that's difficult. It will be a rough road for the corporation. That said, for the first time, we have a letter of understanding with the union regarding ground services and complaint settlement. Jazz Atlantic is working with the union regarding in-flight services. That's the first time we see that.

This is the first time that Air Canada has publicly submitted an action plan and promised to make public follow-up reports on progress achieved. I'm trying to tell you that there are promising signs. This spring, it rehired 880 former attendants, which will help because most were bilingual. The corporation's policy is to hire bilingual flight attendants on a priority basis; the same is true of people who have contact with the public. We see that the corporation is making major efforts and is determined to solve the problem. We also have Mr. Milton's personal commitment on this. He made that commitment in writing and repeated it before this committee.

I agree with you that it's far from perfect. However, I am perhaps more optimistic. We want to work very closely with them to follow up and to ensure that services are provided in both official languages in accordance with the act as soon as possible.

As regards the change in culture, that's a subject that has been of considerable interest to us at the Treasury Board for some time now. We intend to share our experience with them and to see whether we can help them in this regard as well.

The Joint Chair: Thank you.

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): My question is for the two legal advisors, Ms. Bidal and Mr. Pigeon.

We're talking about official languages here. That's all well and good and the act is a tremendous one, but is there also a concern, at Air Canada and in the federal departments, for what is stated in the Constitution?

It's all well and good to talk about official languages, and it's good to talk about them in the Official Languages Act, but you have to go further. You have to go to the heart of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to section 16, which states that the official languages are equal. I have always emphasized that principle. We always talk about majorities and minorities, but, in the field of official languages in Canada, there is equality. It's not the minority and the majority; the two languages are equal. Is this fundamental provision a concern within Air Canada and within the Department of Transport? In addition to the Official Languages Act, there is the equality of the two official languages. Section 16 is very good and very well drafted, but it's not yet fully implemented. It's an ideal, and I understand it because it takes time to change things in the social, legal and political fields in the country. Is this equality of the two official languages a concern at the Treasury Board? We never talk about it in our discussions. We did with regard to hockey and that helped us. We should start doing it again. If there's one thing that is useful, it is this equality of the two official languages in the federal fields, in the federal institutions, in the networks of Radio-Canada, etc. Do you do the same thing at Air Canada and the Department of Transport?

À (1030)

Mrs. Carole Bidal (Counsel, Department of Justice, Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): If I may take the liberty, first, I would say that we are not in a position to answer on behalf of Air Canada. On behalf of the Treasury Board, however, I can tell you that, as a federal institution, Air Canada should be concerned with the equal status of the two official languages, not as a federal institution, but as an institution subject to the Official Languages Act. The first recital in the preamble to the Official Languages Act states:

whereas the Constitution of Canada provides that English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada;

We know perfectly well that the Official Languages Act is the embodiment or concrete application of the principles of equality stated in the Charter. I will let my colleague answer on behalf of Transport Canada. To the extent that Treasury Board, the federal institutions and the other institutions subject to the act have obligations regarding the strict application of the act, this notion of equality of status of the two official languages will definitely have to be part of the proceedings and considerations made. To the extent that Treasury Board takes its section 46 roles and responsibilities seriously and acts on its obligations, I would say that we take into account the equality of status of the two official languages in that regard.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: My distinction is based on the following argument. It's all well and good to base an obligation on an act to the extent that the act is imperative. I believe section 41 is obviously imperative, but there are people who don't think that's clear.

However, section 16 of the Constitution is more than clear. It is the Constitution. It is mandatory. It's not a question of money or a question of ideals. It is a question of reality: the languages have to be equal. I would like to hear the Department of Transport's legal advisor on that point.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon (Senior General Counsel and Head, Department of Justice, Legal Services, Department of Transport): I believe the role of the Department of Transport in this, through the Minister of Transport, has been to sponsor amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The provisions of that act state that the Official Languages Act, which was originally designed to be applied to the federal institutions, applies to Air Canada, to which it moreover applied prior to 1988, when Air Canada was a federal institution, notwithstanding the fact that it was privatized in 1988. The intention of the legislator or Parliament, through section 10 of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, was to continue the application of the Official Languages Act to Air Canada even after privatization. Since Parliament's intent was to place Air Canada under the same regime as the one my colleague, Ms. Vidal, just described, I believe the concerns and points that my colleague raised with regard to the act in general apply as well to the institutions subject to that act.

À (1035)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Whether Air Canada is privatized or not, it's an institution that falls within the federal field. There's no doubt on that. It may be privatized, as a radio or television station may be, but it should not be forgotten that television is a federal field. The same is true of aviation and aeronautics, which are also federal fields.

I'm willing to believe that Air Canada, at one point, was privatized to a certain degree, but it did not cease to be subject to section 16. It is a federal institution. We create those institutions by federal statute. We give them a certain amount of freedom, but they are nevertheless within the federal domain.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: There is no doubt that Air Canada, as a company operating an air transportation business, falls within federal government jurisdiction and under that of Parliament. Moreover, that is the very constitutional basis of section 10 of the Air Canada Public Participation Act. If it had not concerned a company operating a federal business, there would not have been the opportunity to apply section 10 to Air Canada through an act of Parliament.

I agree with you, Senator Beaudoin, that, since Air Canada operates a federal business, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. Parliament has exercised that jurisdiction under section 10 of the Air Canada Public Participation Act by placing Air Canada under the general regime provided for in the Official Languages Act.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Here's the purpose of my distinction. It can always be said that an act is imperative or not. Debates often take place in the courts of justice on this point. They are often pointless debates because I believe the Parliament of Canada does not speak without purpose. If it states in an act that the government undertakes to do such and such a thing, that's mandatory. Once the undertaking itself has been decided upon, it becomes mandatory.

If it's an ordinary act, the following argument is used: we say that that's all well and good, that that's an ideal or an objective, but that it's not mandatory. When it comes to the Constitution of Canada, that argument is no longer valid.

The federal government has powers and the provincial governments have powers. The federal government has obligations and the provinces have obligations. It cannot be said that it's not mandatory, but that it's on the table. That's not a legal argument.

The legal argument is very clear: the two official languages of Canada are equal. You can't get away from that. That's not stated in an act, but rather in the Constitution of Canada. In my view, the entire argument concerning minorities versus majorities is no longer valid. The two languages are equal or they are not. They are equal regardless of the number of people who speak English or French. That's our basic principle.

I wanted to say that because we are always given that argument. It's always argued that there's a minority. Yes, but there is no minority language. English and French are both equal languages.

À (1040)

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

Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to come back to Air Canada's subsidiaries. In response to the committee's recommendation 10, you state:

...it should also be noted that making Air Canada's subsidiaries fully and directly subject to the Official Languages Act would pose a certain number of problems, some of which clearly go beyond the boundaries of the transportation industry.

You're talking about a certain number of problems. Can you explain to me what you mean by that? Can you name those problems?

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: First of all, it should be noted that the subsidiaries in question were not federal institutions. Air Canada was a federal institution. The Official Languages Act was designed for federal institutions. However, the federal government decided, when Air Canada was privatized, to use its jurisdiction to continue to subject Air Canada to the Official Languages Act as though it were a federal institution. So there's a problem there.

The second problem is that the Official Languages Act provides for fiduciary obligations--I don't know whether that's the correct technical term because I'm not a lawyer, but I'm talking in a general sense--for third parties,....

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Very good word.

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: ...people with whom the company has contracts, under section 25 of the Official Languages Act, but it does not provide for such an obligation respecting Part V and Part VI. The fiduciary obligation applies in the case of Part IV. That obligation applies to all federal institutions. If more were required of Air Canada, we would be putting in place a principle that is not even applied to the federal institutions, which are the focus of the Official Languages Act.

The third problem is that Air Canada is not the only entity to have been subject to the Official Languages Act following privatization. There are a number of other entities within the department. That is a partial response to your question, Senator Beaudoin. Yes, the official languages issue is a central concern at Transport Canada. Many other entities have been subject to the Official Languages Act, but it is the corporation itself or the entity itself that was subject thereto.

These, among others, are the types of problems that could arise.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Do you mean that, from the moment Air Canada decides to create a new subsidiary, we're no longer talking about official languages?

Mr.Ghislain Blanchard: With regard to the language of service to the travelling public, an obligation has been set out in the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I don't understand. Are you saying that the Air Canada Public Participation Act provides that Air Canada's subsidiaries are subject to the Official Languages Act?

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: No. The obligation applies to Air Canada. It is directly subject to the Official Languages Act, and it has also been asked to ensure that, wherever it should also provide services in both official languages, its subsidiaries, in similar situations, also offer services in both official languages, as though it were providing them itself. With regard to terminology, we used the terms of section 25, virtually word for word.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: So Air Canada is asked to subject its subsidiaries to the Official Languages Act, but it's not simply a matter of good will on its part.

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: No. The obligation is binding on Air Canada. Air Canada is bound by that obligation. Mr. Pigeon may want to address this point.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: As I understand it, Parliament has imposed this legal accountability on Air Canada, which is the parent company. So, in that respect, Air Canada has a legal obligation, as Senator Beaudoin said earlier.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Perhaps contractual.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: I look at the act itself, and I believe that Air Canada is legally required to comply with the obligations Parliament has imposed on it. It is Air Canada that is accountable.

The act does not apply directly to the subsidiaries, but Air Canada has an obligation to ensure that they render services in both official languages each time Air Canada, if it rendered the same service, would be required to do so under Part IV.

As my colleague Ghislain Blanchard said, this is modelled on section 25 of the Official Languages Act. Where a federal institution, such as the Department of Transport, hires a contractor or consultant to provide a portion of the service to the public under section 25, it is required to ensure that the service is rendered in both official languages. Here again, the Official Languages Act does not apply directly to the contractor or consultant, but the federal institution entering into the contract with the contractor is required to ensure that the contractor achieves a result. In the example I have cited, the contractor must achieve the same result as if the federal institution were rendering the service itself.

À (1045)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you.

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

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Thank you very much to our witnesses this morning.

I would like to go to the government's response to recommendations 14 and 15. When I read the government's response to these two recommendations, it seems to me, quite simply, that this is alreardy the case now.

The government's response states that the Treasury Board Secretary, TBS, will have to ensure that Air Canada adequately informs the public of the availability of services in both official languages. It is added that TBS will pay particular attention to signage, availability of in-person services and compliance with linguistic provisions at major airports. The government adds:

...[TBS] will pursue its monitoring work in 2002-2003 by carrying out a follow-up of the audits conducted in 2000 in the major Canadian airports...

In my opinion, what you say is already in your present mandate. As regards the airports, you're talking about the audits from 2000 for which you are going to carry out follow-up. Were there any audits in 2001? Do you intend to conduct audits in 2002? Instead of telling us about the audits conducted in 2000, I would have liked TBS to tell us what it intends to do this year and in the years to come with regard to those audits.

In short, what additional means does your secretariat intend to take to ensure the linguistic situation evolves, at the airports and elsewhere? In my humble opinion, the status quo of your mission is not enough. I would like to hear you talk about something innovative, something different in implementing the act. For example, are you going to conduct annual audits? What do you have to tell us that's new? This morning, you told us that you were going to ensure that what you do is well done and that you are going to continue doing the same thing. There's nothing new. I would like to hear you on this point, please.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: As regards the 2000 audit in the Canadian airports, we will conduct follow-up in early 2003, in January and February, to ensure that Air Canada has made the changes we asked it to make in the recommendations we made following the last audit. So there will be follow-up on that point.

I can't tell you that we're going to conduct more frequent audits or increase the activity level in this regard. We're doing what we can and we're working very closely with Air Canada to ensure the promised changes are made. In this respect, we are working on developing audit tools. What we're looking for is not so much the capability or means used as the results with regard to Canadians. So we would prefer to base our audits on results rather than capability.

We are also working on self-evaluation tools which the institutions, including Air Canada if that can apply to it, could use. We will then examine results with them. We can't be everywhere all the time. So we're working together with the institutions in question to conduct the necessary follow-up.

I repeat that we're studying the reports and conducting follow-up with the institutions, including Air Canada. We are doing more than we normally did with Air Canada because, as I said a moment ago, an action plan was made public. It's senior management committee and Mr. Milton himself made a public commitment, and the promise of follow-up to actions taken in response to the action plan will be published. We expect this to be done in August.

À (1050)

Mr. Bernard Patry: You just mentioned Air Canada's action plan. Does the Secretariat have an action plan for following up on Air Canada's action plan? If you don't have one, do you have something specific to tell this committee? Can you tell us that Air Canada will have to do such and such a thing and that within two years, one year or six months, you intend to do such and such a thing to ensure follow-up is carried out? What are your objectives?

In your response, you say you're going to “ensure”, but we want more than that. We want a specific timetable. What objectives do you want to achieve within six months, one year or a year and a half? What do you expect from Air Canada? Do you expect Air Canada to tell you that it has done this and that? You are working together with the company, and I congratulate you on that, but what is your action plan for following up Air Canada's action plan?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: As you have see, Air Canada provided us, together with the action plan, with a grid that sets out the timetables in the right-hand columns. So all kinds of measures will be taken, are being taken and have already been taken: testing of new employees from Canadian, accelerated courses, and so on. We are monitoring that with them to ensure that this is done. In the case of Air Canada, our major objective is to try and see whether there is a way to speed up matters so that there are fewer and fewer problems regarding official languages.

We don't simply want to look at their action plan and ensure that the company has done what it promised to do. We also want to see, together with it, whether there is a way to expedite matters. Is it a pessimistic action plan? Since completion of the testing of all employees, isn't that more positive than what we have before us? As well, the hiring of 880 new employees last spring may have improved the corporation's statistics and reduced its training needs. This is the type of thing we want to study with it. We have already spoken to it about the way it trains its employees, about the language training it has provided for the past 25 years to determine whether the Public Service Commission's expertise might be useful to it. The corporation has its own language courses based on its own needs, and it provides the training to its satisfaction. So we can't help it in that field. We think we can help it with our own experience acquired through a certain number of pilot projects within the public service. We're going to share the findings and see whether the corporation can benefit from what we are learning and whether we can achieve tangible progress in official languages sooner.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Ms. Monnet, I've learned more in your last remarks than in all the documents I've read and in the government's response. Thank you very much. I'm pleased to see that you are working together with Air Canada and that there isn't simply a timetable saying that you have audited this and that. Even with a timetable, you can improve the parameters, and I think that's important.

Here's a final question. Are you satisfied with Air Canada's cooperation?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: We are working very closely with the corporation and I believe we are satisfied. Failing evidence to the contrary, I believe there is a great deal of good will. We have a number of examples of that. I believe those people are serious. They have made a public commitment to make progress. Am I fully satisfied? No, because I would like things to go more quickly, as I said a moment ago. Our objective is to make progress happen sooner.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you, Mrs. Monnet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Please allow me to ask a few questions, then we will go on to a second round.

On a technical point, Ms. Monnet, is Air Canada's annual report on official languages published on your Web site?

À (1055)

Mrs. Diana Monnet: No.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Could it be?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: If that's a technical question, the answer is yes, but if we published Air Canada's report, what would we do in the case of the other institutions? That would be a lot of information. But let's say it's accessible. It's not hidden. I don't know whether Air Canada posts it on its site.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We're going to put the question to Air Canada and suggest that it do so. Are your analyses of these plans available?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: The results of the analyses are in the Treasury Board's annual report.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I'm talking about the analysis you are preparing. Are those documents available?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: I don't know, but we'll check. We're sending a response and saying that it has to be done. Are copies of our response sent?

Ms. Jacqueline Loranger (Official Languages Advisor, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): The response itself is sent to Air Canada, to Mr. Milton.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Is that response, which you sent to Air Canada, publicly available? For example, could the committee members have a copy?

Ms. Jacqueline Loranger: Yes, if Air Canada decides to do so.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: We'll see. I promise you an answer. It's sent to Mr. Milton. In our opinion, there's no secret.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): On page 5 of the government response, paragraph 3 states:

After the flight, the crew attends a debriefing and the inspector drafts a report that is sent to the airline and Transport Canada.

Would it be possible for us to have a sample of this kind of report so that we can see what it looks like, please?

A voice: Of course.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): In the next paragraph, you say that the act “sets out enforcement procedures” and, in the last sentence, that the “enforcement measures include administrative monetary penalties”. That may be a follow-up that Senator Gauthier was requesting a moment ago concerning maritime transport.

Could we know how many official language violations there have been over the past five years, since that's our mandate, then how many administrative monetary penalties there have been as a result?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to answer a question from Mr. Godin.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Excuse me, but you may answer Mr. Godin on the second round.

I would like to come back to an issue that Ms. Thibeault raised: the issue of subsidiaries. If I've correctly understood, they are subject solely to the provisions of Part IV of the Official Languages Act. Is that correct?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Jazz is a subsidiary, is it not?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Is Tango a subsidiary?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Tango is a service of Air Canada.

A voice: A trade mark.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If Air Canada decided to create a subsidiary called Air Canada International for all its international flights and a subsidiary called Air Canada Domestic for its domestic flights, that is to say a corporate structure similar to that of BCE, Bell Canada Enterprises, or Nortel, the head corporate structure would be subject to the entire Official Languages Act, including employee participation, etc., but its subsidiaries would not be.

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: The subsidiaries would be subject to none of the parts of the Official Languages Act. Air Canada would be required to ensure that its subsidiaries...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Don't you think that would run somewhat counter to the wish of the Canadian public and of successive Canadian governments that the act be enforced?

Could Air Canada do that, thus completely circumventing the act?

Á (1100)

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: Air Canada can create all the subsidiaries it wants, if that's its choice. However, I would like to point out to you that Air Canada has decided to merge its operations with those of Canadian International Airlines. In so doing, it has decided to subject all its operations to the entire Official Languages Act.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): My question still stands. If Air Canada restructured, could it circumvent the act?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Not the act as a whole. Part IV would continue to apply to the subsidiaries.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: As I said earlier, Air Canada, as the parent company controlling the subsidiaries, has obligations and is accountable for the implementation of the act. It has a legal obligation to comply with it, an obligation which has been imposed on it by Parliament. It is through Air Canada that its subsidiaries must do certain things. Air Canada has an obligation to ensure that its subsidiaries achieve the result that Parliament requires of it. The subsidiaries themselves are not directly subject to the act, but Air Canada requests that they comply with it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Only Part IV.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: That is to say that it must...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Now do you see the point of the committee's recommendation?

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: I could comment on that. When this debate took place two years ago as part of the restructuring of air transportation, two parliamentary committees, one a Senate committee and the other a House of Commons committee, examined this question. The first committee did not recommend that Parliament legislate the application of the Official Languages Act to the subsidiaries; it talked about encouragement. The second committee discussed Part IV. When the Commissioner appeared before the committees, she recommended that Part IV apply. We took off from there.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Now, when we recommend something else, you don't want to take off from there.

Ms. Monnet, I'm going to tell you that, personally, I am fairly disappointed by the government's response. I'm trying to imagine a tax system in which there would be no penalties. I believe a lot of people would then have a lot of fun. You can also think of a system of personal or property security in which there would not be any penalties. I believe we would have a great deal of trouble designing and implementing such a system. In the case before us, it has been stated that respect for linguistic duality is a fundamental value of the country, but we are not prepared to go ahead in a coercive manner, even though, several years later, we realized that there are still major deficiencies. I admit to you that I am quite disappointed at the government's response. I want to see whether I have correctly understood.

The second last paragraph on page 1 of the report states:

The Government is also of the view that it would not be equitable for Air Canada, a private company,...

Personally, I believe it's a federal institution subject to the act, but it says private company.

...to be subject to a specific linguistic regime that is more stringent than the regime applicable to all the federal institutions for which the Official Languages Act was designed.

Senator Gauthier talked about this and I want to discuss it again. Can I interpret this paragraph by saying that the government is in favour of a system of sanctions, provided it applies to everyone, not just to Air Canada?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: I believe that's an excellent question for my boss, Ms. Robillard.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Will you pass it on to her?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes, with pleasure.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Good. Now I have a much nastier question.

Your boss and you told the committee that, in March of next year, senior public servants will have to speak both languages and that this deadline will not be extended once again. Through the media, we have heard about a series of potential actions, some of which could be punitive. How could the government take such measures, if that's what it wishes to do--we don't yet know--when it does not want to do so for Air Canada?

It wouldn't be fair to apply a more stringent regime to our senior civil servants. If the government wishes to impose some kind of monetary penalty on those who do not meet their commitments, how is it that it can't do the same thing with regard to Air Canada because it's a private company and doesn't want to be treated more harshly than others? How can you reconcile those two positions?

Á (1105)

Mrs. Diana Monnet: First, the government or the Treasury Board is the employer of the people in the departments, which is not the case of Air Canada.

Second, you have to be careful when you use the word “punitive”. We recommend that language requirements, that is to say the high CBC level for executives, the EX employees in government, be taken into consideration. That's an important requirement of the position; it's important for the language of work in the departments. So that's one of the objectives that has been set for them. They receive pay for performance based on how they achieve their objectives. If someone has not achieved this level and can therefore not perform his or her duties in both official languages as required, we recommend that that be reflected in his pay for performance. That is the recommendation that was made to the deputy ministers.

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

I will now give the floor to Mr. Sauvageau, who has requested it, but allow me first to ask you one more question.

The committee asked the government three questions. One concerned the 5 percent question. You know what I'm talking about?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): In the response, the government states, in the third paragraph on page 9:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act refer to the concept of significant demand. Moreover, deleting the significant demand measurement criterion from the Regulations could establish a linguistic regime specific to Air Canada, and might have major consequences which should be examined before such a decision is made.

Are you going to study that?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes, we are going to study the regulations question. The approach we have adopted is that this is much less a question of regulations than a matter of application of and compliance with the regulations.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Will you share the findings of your study with us?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: If there's a formal study. We're studying the question. I'm not saying there's going to be a report on it. The question is open. You're asking it and others are asking it as well, so we are obliged to study it. I would like to say that it's not so much the regulations themselves that are the issue, but rather compliance with the regulations as they exist.

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

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If my memory serves me, Air Canada said it attached no importance to the 5% rule and provided service everywhere.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes, that's its objective.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: When you come back after a few minutes, you get the impression we're a bit out of order. Since the questions put to Ms. Monnet and Mr. Blanchard often required a subsequent written response, I'd also like someone to send me a few models of federal statutes that operate on good will and the harmony of Canadian values rather than coercion. Following comments by Mr. Bellemare, Mr. Gauthier and everyone, you said you were not in favour of more coercion in enforcing the Official Languages Act because that was part of our values. In your opinion, are there other statutes that are part of our values and compliance with which does not require coercion, or is the Official Languages Act a special and distinct statute? I'm not asking you to answer right away. Send us two or three examples for our personal instruction. I'd very much appreciate that.

You also said you were working in cooperation with Air Canada to establish evaluation tools and that, under paragraph 46(2)(d) of the act, the Treasury Board has a mandate to monitor and audit federal institutions, including Air Canada.

Can you tell us whether you worked with Air Canada on the complaint form? Air Canada told us that a specific address would appear in En Route magazine where the customer could send complaints and comments concerning official languages. Was that done in cooperation with Treasury Board and Transport Canada? Are you satisfied with this action by Air Canada, when you asked Air Canada to report on the implementation of the Official Languages Act? The response we received is an article in En Route magazine. Was that done in cooperation with you, and, if so, are you satisfied with it?

Á (1110)

Mrs. Diana Monnet: We knew they were going to do it and they did it.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You don't know what's in it, but it was done.

Ms. Jacqueline Loranger: We looked at En Route magazine. Air Canada has sent us a copy in the past few weeks. That was done, but Air Canada did it on its own initiative. We didn't have to...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I asked that, once it was in En Route magazine, a copy be sent to the committee clerk. As far as I know, we have not received a copy.

Ms. Jacqueline Loranger: We can talk to Air Canada about it and ask it to send you a copy.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You also said you couldn't be everywhere. You're perfectly right about that. Air Canada may implement the Official Languages Act in such a particular way that its customer service is really the most sensitive.

Why are you not more concerned about that clientele than about the traditional audit and observation tools used in the various departments? For example, if you can't be everywhere or hire a million inspectors to audit the implementation of the Official Languages Act, why aren't you more inclined to give the customers of the air carriers in general, and more specifically of Air Canada, information on their rights and how they can complain?

I would like Mr. Gaudreau to tell me how many customers knew that the standardized briefings complied with the regulations of the Carriage by Air Act and that that was not the case of the in-flight briefings. Since the standardized briefings are in compliance with the Carriage by Air Act and a complaint may be filed with the Department of Transport, how many customers have filed a complaint based on this right they have?

I know your department head, who probably wrote this part of the act, knew it, but apart from him and the two or three other persons with him, how many customers are aware of this, were made aware of it and filed a complaint? I know there is another question for you and another for Ms. Monnet. I'm standing hard and fast by my complaint form, and I find that you are dismissing it out of hand. That's one of your mandates, one of your powers. It's one of the recommendations you could implement. Air Canada says it's going to publish it in En Route magazine and that everything will be all right. I want to know why, if you can't be everywhere, you aren't focusing more on your actions towards users, towards Canadians, for whom the act must be implemented and complied with.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Efforts will definitely have to be made to provide information in Canada on the fact that the two official languages are equal and people have rights. I'll tell you honestly that we know there is still work to do.

As to the form you've previously suggested, we discussed it very seriously with Air Canada. We have done follow-up. Since it must be put on all Air Canada aircraft, this matter falls within its jurisdiction. It's expensive and complicated. The corporation is trying to achieve the same goal by other means, such as surveys on the degree of customer satisfaction with official languages.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Allow me to interrupt you. I gave Air Canada the bid; it was $18,000. I don't know whether that's too expensive when you have business turnover of several billion dollars, but I had already given a bid.

Á (1115)

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Thank you. I haven't seen it. The corporation hired the firm of Ipsos-Reid to conduct surveys to determine how satisfied its clientele was. As regards information, it is posting signs advising people to introduce a recording to inform passengers of their language rights at the start of each flight and to inform them orally. It has a new slogan emphasizing that Air Canada is pleased to serve the travelling public in the official language of its choice. That's not the exact slogan, but that's what it means. It's starting to be posted on its Web site, in En Route magazine and everywhere it can post it. So the corporation has started to inform travelling Canadians of their rights, Ipsos-Reid is monitoring the results and we're trying to correct the deficiencies.

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

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to talk to you about audits. I'll stop here today and I admit that I'm a bit frustrated. I've been trying for a long time to convince the government and Treasury Board people that an ongoing, serious and methodical audit is essential. You told me that an audit was being conducted at Treasury Board. There is a section or group of people who audit the implementation of the Official Languages Act to the extent that it applies to the federal institutions. I'm not talking about all the other parties, but about the federal institutions, in particular the 29 designated institutions which every year must prepare a report which is usually filed, not with us, but with the Department of Canadian Heritage. There is a bit of confusion in this entire process. One department is responsible for auditing and another receives the plans. Do you ever talk with each other to see whether there are any problems? We often see problems.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: I must say I share your view that this is a problem. So that we can start making progress on this matter, we are discussing with Heritage Canada ways of improving coordination of data and communication about the evaluations we do and about all the parts of the act, including Part VII, for which Heritage Canada is mainly responsible. It's not perfect, but we admit there is room to improve things and we're working on that. Our objective is to obtain an overall picture of compliance of all the parts of the act across the public service and, in particular, in the 29 institutions for the purpose of Part VII.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I need figures. If you want guideposts... How many people are currently involved in audit at Treasury Board? What is the size of your staff? That's my first question. You could send me a written response.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: I can tell you that there aren't many. It's a small outfit.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: There are not many?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: No.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are there a dozen or half-dozen? How many people are involved in audit?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: There are four at the present time. We're working through...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Ms. Monnet, who does the director of that group report to? To an assistant deputy minister or to you?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: We work together; he's under my responsibility.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So you are responsible.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes, but that's a change that took place approximately two years ago. Before that, official languages audit was part of the general audit function at Treasury Board, and that was repatriated about two years ago. So we're trying to do better right now. I can't say that's it's new, but audit has only recently returned to the branch.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So I can conclude that audit is not your concern at the present time.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: I can tell you that that is a concern for me. We are working on finding ways to do better.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: All right. I have two brief additional questions. I'm going to set that aside for the moment, but I'm going to come back to it because I think audit is important and we should have a dynamic section or group to deal with it.

To be frank with you, I would say that, as chairman, I am disappointed with the government's response and particularly with the answers to the three questions we asked, one of which concerned the 5% issue. I was here when we debated the 5% concept. I was here when we debated “where numbers warrant”. Do you remember?

Á (1120)

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes, very clearly.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That concept was abandoned and the significant demand notion was adopted. Canadians are somewhat confused and I don't blame them. When does the act apply? When do we have 5 percent? Do we have language laws or not? The committee feels that this confusion would be cleared up if we eliminated the 5% rule. The government answered that it was an important concept, but that it could have considerable consequences that should be studied before a decision is made. That's roughly what you said in the response.

Could you talk to us a bit about the so-called considerable consequences? What considerable consequences would there be if we simply stated bluntly that the act applies to federal institutions and, in particular, to Air Canada, in the field of air transport. Let's disregard the 5% idea. Everyone's entitled to it: Godin, Gauthier and everyone else.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: First, we would have to examine the legal basis for an amendment to the 5% concept. That's what was put forward since the Charter talks about significant demand. We would have to have legal opinions on that.

I would also like to emphasize that the rules make no mention of 5%; there are automatic obligations that apply. It's like a kind of funnel. Before coming to the last point, where we see whether 5% applies or not, there are other automatic complications in cases where we do not even have to measure because it is already considered that demand is significant. It's automatic in the case of a head office. It's automatic in the National Capital Region. As for air service, in the case of a terminal or a stop-over...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I know all that.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: You know all that. So the 5% rule applies in a minority of cases.

I believe we have to examine the results, even if, from a legal standpoint, we could foresee the consequences that might arise if we over-extended our resources. We would also have to consider the meaning of section 91, which talks about a need. We can't say that every position must be bilingual; you have to show that the demand exists.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I know perfectly well, but I have trouble when you say that 5 percent applies over one year. So you have to do calculations over one year. Do we have access to those figures, to those studies or to those documents?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Joseph will answer you.

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi (Senior Official Languages Advisor, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat): According to the directive that applies to this aspect of the implementation of the regulations, the federal institutions that have done surveys to assess demand are supposed to keep the findings on record.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: They are supposed to keep them, but have you seen them?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: In some cases, yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Could we have a copy or two?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: If you are thinking of Air Canada, we can contact the corporation to obtain the figures.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: The problem is that I have to trust that Air Canada will tell me whether or not there was 5 percent. Mr. Godin and others will tell you they want the figures and proof that there is 5% or there isn't 5 percent.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: It's not Air Canada that does the calculation. An independent survey firm measures all that. With Statistics Canada, we examine the methodology in advance. It's not done in a haphazard way.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator, your time is up.

Mr. Godin.

Á (1125)

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know that Mr. Gaudreau is in a hurry to give me an answer and I'm in a hurry to hear it. I'm going to give him the opportunity to answer me.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: Thank you, Mr. Godin. I did a little research on your question on the number of inspectors on board when changes were made to the implementation of the Official Languages Act for airlines. There have been seven complaints over the past two years, and, of that number, three were filed by inspectors who were on board the aircraft. Royal was fined because an inspector was on board.

Mr. Yvon Godin: But only one received a fine.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: Another is under investigation. As to the third, the circumstances were exceptional and the operator was told it would not be fined. His son was absent at roll call.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I filed a complaint because, when I took a plane from Ottawa to Montreal, the service was in English only and the flight attendant could not speak French. The government did not see fit to levy a fine at that time.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: I didn't receive the complaint. Was the air safety service completely in English?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Everything was in English only.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: The entire service. Did you write a letter to me?

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, not to you. It was addressed to the official languages department and to Air Canada.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: We have a letter of understanding with the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm paid as a federal member of Parliament. I'm not an official investigator, but I am a good investigator for you because I take the plane every week. So when I take the plane and the service is in English only, I'll send you a complaint, Mr. Gaudreau, and you'll see whether the company should be fined or not.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: Not in the case of passenger service. I handle air safety service. When both official languages are not used in such cases, send me a complaint and I'll deal with it.

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: Mr. Godin, it should be stated that our responsibility applies to standardized safety announcements. If those standardized safety announcements are not made to you in both official languages, we can act. If it concerns other aspects of the service, that's not our responsibility.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Coming back to my question, a flight attendant told me that a safety document he had to use existed in English only. I'll send you proof of that. In an emergency, when flight attendants are required to communicate with passengers orally, not by hand gestures, are they required to speak to them in the two official languages of Canada?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: They are not required to do so under the Canadian Aviation Regulations. The pre-flight briefing is done in English and in French. The cards in the pockets are in both official languages or contain pictograms, but in an emergency...

Mr. Yvon Godin: You're telling me we have to live in French and die in English.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: No.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I believe it's important. I want to ensure I understand what you're telling me. You're telling me that, on take-off and in flight, they are required, for safety reasons to speak to me in French if I'm a Francophone, but that, as soon as there is an emergency, that no longer applies.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: May I clarify a point?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, if you can clarify for me what Transport Canada means.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: I can tell you a little about the regulations, if you wish.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: What regulations are you talking about?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: I'm talking about standards 705.43, 725.43 and 725.44 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Can you read it to us, please?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: They are lengthy regulations.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm sure the Chairman won't give us all that time.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: That's correct.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Just read us the part...

(3) Preparation of passengers for emergency landing

Emergency briefings given in an emergency, where time and circumstances permit, shall include instructions concerning:

(a) safety belts or harnesses;

(b) seat backs and tables;

(d) safety features cards;

(e) the protective position (when to adopt it and for how long);

(f) life jackets, where applicable;

(g) location of exists; and

(h) where applicable, procedures for the evacuation of the occupant of a child restraint system.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That doesn't tell us in what language it has to be done.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: It's in both official languages.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Then, there's no problem.

Mr. Yvon Godin: So I'm right in saying that, when the aircraft is descending, they have to speak to me in French.

A voice: They have to handle the emergency too.

Mr. Yvon Godin: They have to answer me in French if they have the time.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: If they have the time, because emergencies sometimes arise very suddenly and no one has the time to give all that.

Mr. Ghislain Blanchard: One thing could be clarified with respect to Air Canada and Air Canada alone. It also has an obligation to communicate in both official languages where there is significant demand. So, in an emergency, obviously Air Canada should be able to provide these briefings, since they are a public communication, like all the other services it provides as part of its mandate.

Á (1130)

Mr. Yvon Godin: Let's come back to the 5% issue. I believe people will agree with me that an airline is different from a business located in a region where you have to provide service in both official languages because it has been determined that 5% of the population is Francophone and 95% Anglophone. The problem with aviation is that people who live in a region where 80% of the population is Francophone can travel to Prince George, British Columbia, for example, where less than 5% of the population is Francophone. That's the problem and people can be confused about it. They no longer know how they are protected by the act. I believe it's one of the problems of aviation. That's why we should drop this 5% concept and provide service to everyone in Canada.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: In my view, we're talking about a problem of enforcement of or compliance with the regulations rather than the regulations themselves. The 5% rule is the last criterion to apply. There are automatic obligations at departure points which are automatically designated: head office, the National Capital Region, Moncton and Montreal, in and outside Canada, services to the public must be provided in both official languages. In the provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and between those provinces, service must be provided in both official languages as well. I know we're talking about a travelling public, but with these points on land, we're covering more than 95% of the minority populations in Canada. So, with regard to the 5 percent rule, the question really arises in a minority of cases. That's what we're obliged to measure. If it's more than 5%, there's an obligation; if not, there's no obligation. So there is a minimum number or there isn't.

I believe the problem with regard to Air Canada's service is that it does not have enough bilingual attendants and is not complying with the regulations. It's not really the regulations themselves that pose a problem.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Let's come back to En Route magazine. Last night, I was on a Jazz flight and I can tell you I saw the little folder so that you can get a CIBC credit card, which is very visible, but I didn't see the address where you have to send a complaint concerning official languages.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: It's not in En Route?

Mr. Yvon Godin: I didn't say it's not there. I wasn't looking for it. I looked at the magazine and I didn't see it. But the little CIBC folder is easy to find. That was a comment.

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

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I would like to make a brief remark. Ms. Monnet, you referred to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I want to say that it should not be forgotten that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms puts language rights in the Constitution. It's one of the rare charters that does. Usually, in charters of rights, you find the conventional rights: freedom, equality and so on. But we decided in 1982 to put language rights in it, and we even ruled out the notwithstanding clause, which does not apply to language rights. So, for us, language rights are not only fundamental rights, but fundamental rights that are not subject to the notwithstanding clause. That should be emphasized because it's truly extraordinary.

My second question concerns delegation. Someone said a moment ago that Air Canada could, perhaps indirectly, get out of its obligations regarding bilingualism. Obviously, the answer is no. Parliament gives Air Canada and the federal institutions their powers, and Parliament alone can change those powers. I'm not at all afraid of that because Air Canada can't do that. It has delegated powers, but the entity that has delegated powers cannot delegate them to someone else. It must enter into contractual agreements on bilingualism, but it definitely cannot change the bilingualism obligations of Jazz and all the other co-contractors. That's impossible. I don't know whether you agree on that, Mr. Pigeon, but it is quite clear in my mind that Air Canada couldn't get out of its obligations. I believe Air Canada does it through contracts. By delegating its powers and signing contracts, it requires others to submit to bilingualism. That's very good, but that's not all it can do.

Now, should we legislate on absolutely everything? I'm not advocating that. There are limits to our legislation. I believe that we must be clear and precise in an act. We must know what we want. That's really a lot in a federal act. I don't know whether you have an answer to that.

Á (1135)

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: Senator Beaudoin, I agree on your interpretation. Parliament has given Air Canada an obligation as a corporation, and Air Canada cannot shirk that obligation.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Neither directly nor indirectly.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: I agree that, as a corporation, it remains subject: Parliament has decided that. I don't think that what I've said is an exception in any way to the principle we have just discussed, that is to say that Parliament has given Air Canada an obligation to achieve a result through a particular means. You suggest the contractual means, but there's also the structure of corporate governance. A subsidiary is normally controlled by the parent company. So there is a right of control. The instrument the parent company uses to ensure the result could be contractual, corporate or something else. What is important for Canada is that it comply with its obligation to achieve the desired result.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Thank you. I agree.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Two members of the committee have asked to take the floor in a third round of two minutes. Senator Gauthier and Mr. Sauvageau, you have two minutes each, then we will close.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have two brief questions. You said you would need legal opinions if we wanted to amend the 5% rule, given the consequences of abandoning such a concept. You have a big Department of Justice. It wouldn't be hard for you to request legal opinions on that. Do you intend to do so?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Once you have them, could you send them to the clerk so that we can be informed of them?

Ms. Carole Bidal: There's a question of privilege at that point.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: She invoked privilege. What privilege are you talking about? Bureaucratic privilege or parliamentary privilege? I have a privilege too as a parliamentarian.

Ms. Carole Bidal: As legal advisors, when we give our client opinions, they are the property of the client. At that point, there's a question of privilege and of protection of the relationship between solicitor and client.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, but I'm talking to the client. I'm talking to the Treasury Board.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Next time, if you ask me a question...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are you going to give me the benefit of those legal opinions?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Honestly, I don't know whether I will be able to do so.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Your answer is that you don't know.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: That's correct.

Á (1140)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Here's my second question.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: However, if you ask me the question next time, I will draw on that advice in formulating the answer I give you.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I'm a politician and I'm going to turn to politics. If the bureaucracy can't answer me, I'm going to see those who are supposed to be responsible, that is to say the politicians.

Here's my second question. Are the airports in all the provincial capitals designated bilingual under the Official Languages Act?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: No, not all.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: They aren't designated...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Can you send me a list, not of those that are covered because I know them, but of those that are not covered.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Send me a list of the provincial municipalities or capitals because, in some other situations, we have demanded that the provincial capitals be designated bilingual.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Please send the answers to all the requests to the joint clerks so that we can distribute them. Thank you.

Mr. Sauvageau, you have two minutes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: My two questions are for Mr. Gaudreau. I previously asked you--my question was too long and you didn't have the time to answer it--how many customers or non-officials had filed complaints and what the complaints process was. You could send us your answer.

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: Thank you. I tried to answer you, but we did not have enough time.

We have a letter of understanding with the Commissioner of Official Languages regarding air safety complaints. We receive a lot of complaints from airline customers: complaints on official languages, complaints on flight safety, complaints on on-board comfort. Our clients know us and send us complaints. I can't give you an exact number, but hundreds go through my office.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If you don't have it right away, you can send it to us.

You have an air safety advertising budget. You recently issued an advertisement on safety when packing luggage. We saw a family and it was all very nice. What percentage of your budget do you allocate to air safety compared to what you devote to air safety related to official languages? Suppose you allocated $1 million to the baggage and air safety awareness campaign. How much money have you allocated to information on official languages with regard to air safety? Can you send us that?

Mr. Michel Gaudreau: I can send it to you because I don't have the figures here.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mrs. Monnet, a moment ago, you mentioned the Constitution, section 20 of which concerns significant demand. There is another provision in that section that states that the use of English and French is justified on the basis of the nature of the office.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Perhaps we should think in terms of the nature of the office, in the case of this transportation system in which people travel, to eliminate the 5% rule. I believe you can see the committee members want to pursue this question. We have been addressing it for some time now. We have received people and are beginning to know you all. I believe the will is still there and that we are going to be able to continue. For example, Transport Canada this summer is to receive comments from an independent observer. In the independent observer's comments, reference is made to official languages. I imagine that's going to be shared with the committee because we may consider receiving that person as a witness.

Thank you very much for coming, to two places, in your case, Mrs. Monnet, and for your answers today. As you can see, the people around this table want to try to improve the situation of services to Canadian taxpayers in different ways from those that have been used in the past.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Thank you. We share the same objectives.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Don't leave right away.

The second subject we were to discuss in public was La Soirée du hockey. You all heard yesterday's announcement: Radio-Canada and RDS have come to an agreement. May I conclude that this matter is settled, at least for the moment, for committee members? That's the update we were looking for.

Voices: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I wish to congratulate all the committee members who attended the two or three meetings of the last week. You've been a bit rushed, but it was done. Moreover, I've already issued a press release of which I'll be sending you copies. I'm convinced that, had it not been for the committee members' desire to press on, the problem would not have been resolved in this manner. Congratulations, ladies and gentlemen.

We're going to take a five-minute break, then come back to discuss two other subjects in camera. Thank you.

[The meeting continued in camera.]