LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 2, 2001

• 1535

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I call the meeting to order.

[Translation]

I want to welcome you, Mr. Pigeon and Ms. Dufour. Today, you are to speak to us about Air Canada's obligation to provide services in both official languages. Are you ready to begin?

Ms. Valérie Dufour (Director General, Domestic Air Policy, Department of Transport): Yes, Madam Chair. Would you prefer that I make my presentation in English or in French?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): We have two official languages, Ms. Dufour; you are free to choose.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: We have a short presentation for you, which is available in both languages, in which we intend to present a brief history of the current situation with regard to Air Canada's obligations, with an emphasis on the perspective of the legislation for which the Minister of Transport has authority. I will not be discussing, at all, the content of the Official Languages Act as such: that is the mandate of Treasury Board. I will discuss what we have done since 1988, and in the following years.

As you know, when Air Canada was a Crown corporation it had been made subject to the Official Languages Act and when it was determined that the company was to be privatized, that obligation was maintained. The text quotes the law which has been in effect since August 18, 1988, the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which states, in section 10, very clearly, without ambiguity, that: “The Official Languages Act applies to the Corporation.”

When recent events at the House of Commons and in Parliament concerning the restructuring of air transportation brought this issue to the fore again, the Minister of Transport, faced with the possible implications of a merger of air transport companies, declared in his policy framework which was tabled and examined by the House of Commons and the Senate, what can be found on page 3 of my presentation, where I quote, verbatim, what the minister said in October 1998:

Fundamental to the identity of Canada is its linguistic duality. It is a reflection of Canada's unique culture and values that Canadians be able to rely on the national air carrier for service in both official languages.

Under its governing legislation, Air Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act. Air Canada represents Canada to Canadians and to the world. One mark of its status as a national symbol is that Air Canada is expected to provide services to Canadians in both English and French.

And in his commitment, the minister says:

The government will ensure that the Official Languages Act continues to apply in the case of Air Canada or any future dominant carrier, and that the act is effectively implemented.

I'm not going to review everything that happened. You know that subsequently Air Canada won the race. But when standing committees were asked to examine the framework policy, they did their duty and themselves submitted reports to the minister in December 1999. The Standing Committee of the House stated in its 21st recommendation:

The government encourage all Canadian air carriers not specifically subject to the Official Languages Act to respect the spirit and intent of the act where there is significant demand for services in either of Canada's official languages.

For its part, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications stated in recommendation 16:

The Committee recommends that under a dominant carrier or owner scenario in Canada, all operations directly serving the public carried out by that carrier or owner and its subsidiaries be made subject to the Official Languages Act.

• 1540

That is the recommendation which was proposed before the date upon which the government accepted, on certain conditions, the purchase of Canadian Airlines by Air Canada, which was done on December 21 on the basis of specified commitments to the Minister of Transport and undertakings to the Commissioner of Competition.

To complete the corporate aspect, the purchase was given the green light and the acquisition proceeded and Canadian Airlines became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Air Canada on January 1, 2001. Throughout the year 2000, it was a partial, indirect subsidiary. Since that year, it has become a wholly-owned subsidiary.

The history of Canadian Airlines regional operations is a little different. This company was put up for sale at the request of the Commissioner, but kept by Air Canada. The corporate evolution of Canadian Airlines, regional operations, saw it also become a wholly-owned subsidiary on January 1, 2001.

In December 1999, when the minister had recommended and the government had accepted that Air Canada acquire Canadian, a bill had been agreed to to guide the future of air transport. This was Bill C-26 of the previous Parliament—the title is very long and I won't quote it in its entirety—which amended among others the Canada Transport Act, and the Canada Public Participation Act, which act is the reason for my testimony today.

Parliament completed its review of the bill in June of last year and it became law; that law has been enforced since July 5, 2000.

What new obligations does this act impose on Air Canada? What has been proposed is a new obligation which means that in future Air Canada, the parent company, has the new obligation to ensure—this is rather an extension of an existing obligation, a clarification of an existing obligation—that the clients of its subsidiaries receive air services in both official languages, as required by the Official Languages Act.

In light of repercussions on entities which never were Crown corporations and were not all able to comply with this immediately, we determined that there should be immediate application for services provided in Eastern Canada, from Ontario to Newfoundland, with a one-year delay for the rest of the country, including western Manitoba and the three territories. That was the first principle.

Moreover, we stated that Canadian Airlines was to comply with the new obligations within three years of becoming a subsidiary controlled by Air Canada. That is the reason why I was so specific on this earlier. As of that year, Canadian Airlines became a wholly-owned subsidiary: the countdown had begun.

However, there is another principle which stipulates that in all cases where Canadian Airlines or another subsidiary replaces Air Canada on a service provided by that company, that company must immediately comply to the requirements that would have applied to Air Canada, that is to say exactly in the same way as if Air Canada continued to offer the service itself.

• 1545

I will be answering your questions in a moment concerning the nuances of all this, but to complete my presentation, the key dates are July 5, 2000 for Eastern Canada and July 5, 2001 for the West and the Territories with regard to the compliance obligations of these subsidiaries whose names are known: Air Nova, Air BC, Canadian regional. As for Canadian Airlines in the corporate sense, the compliance deadline was 3:00 p.m. January 1 of this year and July 5 of the year 2000 for companies providing services as substitutes for Air Canada. Those of you who travel know that it is easy to confuse the two because of the schedule structure.

As a guide, I have added to my presentation the list of all communities served by Air Canada itself, by province; the points served by its wholly-owned subsidiaries, that is to say Air BC, Air Nova, etc.; and also the other points served—since this concerns all of Air Canada's network in the country—by regional carriers who are not subject to obligations because they have no corporate relation to Air Canada, but rather commercial relations with Air Canada. These are private sector entities that share codes, that have concluded a commercial agreement for connecting flights, etc.

To help you to understand the specific changes that we have made to the act, I have added a document excerpted from Bill C-26 which describes in detail the amendment which concerns Air Canada.

The secretariat and the clerk had asked me to make a 10-minute presentation, approximately. So I will conclude here. I invite your questions.

Senator Lise Bacon (De la Durantaye, Lib.): I have a point of order, or rather a question.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Go ahead, we will see.

Senator Lise Bacon: In your agenda, you write: “A review on bilingual services offered by air carriers in Canada”. But only Air Canada is discussed here. There are other air carriers in Canada.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I have to tell you that I have not seen the agenda.

Senator Lise Bacon: That is because we were discussing air carriers in Canada.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We are talking about Air Canada.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): We are talking about Air Canada.

Senator Lise Bacon: So, it was Air Canada.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We are going to call this a growing pain.

Senator Lise Bacon: It was a question.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: I could provide a clarification on this, to our joint chairs.

In Canada, all air carriers are subject to language obligations when they transmit information concerning safety. You have no doubt had the experience of very anglophone companies using a tape recording in French. Safety information is always provided in both languages. That is the regulatory aspect of safety and it will not change.

Air Canada alone has obligations that derive from the Official Languages Act.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Pigeon, do you have something to add?

Mr. Jacques E. Pigeon (General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport): No, for the moment, I will limit myself to answering questions. If there are any.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Reid, would you like to skip your turn or go ahead now?

[English]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Just very quickly, I wonder if I could ask you about some background information for my own benefit.

Under the regulations, it is a requirement that service be provided both on air routes and at airports where 5% of the total demand or more is in the minority language of that province. Of course it's also required at airports that have over one million passengers a year. I wondered if you knew, among the airports that have over one million passengers a year, how many of those have over 5% demand. I can guess, but I wondered if you would have the answer to that question.

• 1550

Ms. Valérie Dufour: No, I don't. I don't have the answer to that question.

All of those issues are in fact not transportation issues. Those are all issues that come out of the regulations established by the Treasury Board that manage the Official Languages Act and that have established what institutions, what points.

From an air transportation point of view, the focus of the section in the bill is designed to create a bridge between the obligations of the carrier and the site, but essentially it's the obligation of the carrier at that site in terms of its clientele.

Mr. Scott Reid: So you would be unable to come back to the committee with that information if we were to ask you. It's simply outside your purview.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: No. I would suggest that's a question you will ask next week when you have the Treasury Board officials here who manage the Official Languages Act and who can explain all the definitions, regulations, and so on.

Mr. Scott Reid: All right. Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That's it?

[Translation]

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): I have a few very specific questions. I will address them to Mr. Pigeon.

Is Air Canada a federal institution, yes or no?

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: At this time, Air Canada is not a federal institution. It is a private enterprise. The 1988 act allowed for the privatisation of Air Canada. It is in that context that section 10 was adopted.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Essentially, your answer is no.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: No.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So, the Official Languages Act which always refers to federal institutions, in particular in Part IV does not apply to it. Is that the case?

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: The act cannot apply to firms other than federal institutions. However, section 10 of the Air Canada Public Participation Act which was amended by Bill C-26 extended the application of the Official Languages Act to Air Canada.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am aware of that and I have close to me the expert in this area, Ms. Bacon.

What you have just said troubles me. I know that Air Canada is subject, if I may use that term—I don't know if it is the legal term—to the Official Languages Act. Officially, section 10 of the 1988 act and the amendment brought in by Bill C-26 apply to Air Canada. There is no law on that.

I was asking whether Air Canada is a federal institution. This question is important in reviewing the application of that law, because there are some agencies that claim that they are not federal institutions and that we should not bother them about official languages.

The proof is that Air Canada is the company about which the Commissioner of Official Languages received the greatest number of complaints. Last year, there were 147 complaints. This has been an ongoing situation for the past 10 years, these complaints about Air Canada: language of service, language of communication.

Ms. Dufour was saying earlier that one million travellers go through Toronto every year and that it is subject to the act. Is that true? Are you with Transport Canada yourself?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Yes, as he is also.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So, official languages complaints would go to you. You have an agreement with the Commissioner. I read my documents. Transport Canada has an agreement with the Commissioner of Official Languages. It is in the annual report. I have not made this up. I will find it, if you like. There is an agreement which states that complaints will be handled by both agencies: Transport Canada and the Commissioner of Official Languages. It does not exist?

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: Where safety is concerned, I could not tell you, but I think that pursuant to the Official Languages Act complaints are sent to the Commissioner of Official Languages, who deals with complaints about private institutions to which the OLA has been extended. That was the purpose of broadening the act.

• 1555

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am referring to Air Canada and its affiliates. Be it Air Nova or Air Ontario, they are all subject to the act.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: No, no, no.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): There is the rub.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Very well. Go ahead, Madam. Do correct me.

Ms. Valerie Dufour: It is Air Canada, the parent society, which is subject to the act, and its obligation was extended to its affiliates. We forced Air Canada to ensure that the service provided by its subsidiaries was in compliance with its obligations.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You did not do this yourself. It was Parliament that imposed it through Bill C-26.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is the truth.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: What I am saying is that more than a million passengers go through Toronto. Is that true?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Good. So, they are subject to the Official Languages Act, are they not?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Because Ontario...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: There is no problem, we understand each other.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will get back to Mr. Pigeon.

The Official Languages Act applies to federal institutions. The act does not refer to Air Canada, but to federal institutions. Air Canada is not a federal institution.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: Air Canada is not a federal institution.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You also said that you do not handle complaints jointly with the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: To my knowledge, the Commissioner of Official Languages receives the complaints made about Air Canada or any federal institution.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. We will get back to this in the second round.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: This is the problem with question period in committee.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will get back to this. We have always allowed you to ask questions, Senator, sometimes even on four occasions.

Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to give a concrete example. Last week, citizens from the Magdalen Islands had a painful experience with respect to official languages. Are you aware of this file? You are not aware of the file.

The newspapers reported that the plane had been diverted to Halifax. According to your brief, an Air Canada subsidiary provides all of the service to the Magdalen Islands. You also stated, in your tables on page 9, that Air Canada or Air Canada subsidiaries provide all of the service in Halifax. The City of Halifax is not served by any other carriers.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Yes, there are several carriers, but not in...

Mr. Mario Laframboise: But not Air Canada. If I understand correctly, if Air Canada, through its subsidiaries or through the company directly, provided service to citizens from the Magdalen Islands, the people should have been served in French in Halifax or in the Magdalen Islands.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Yes.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: If Air Canada did not do so, as was the case, what is the penalty? The people were not provided service in French. A complaint was filed. What happens then?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Once again, these are questions that could be put to the Treasury Board next week, as it is responsible for the regulation. We are not responsible for the regulations.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: You are not responsible for the regulations. You do not know and you do not want to know.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: No, and I said so at the very outset. We took action as we did in 1998. Parliament had decided that federal entities or federal institutions privatized by the government would retain their official languages obligations. In the case of a dominant carrier, we said that this dominant carrier, Air Canada, should retain the official languages obligation that it had been given in 1988 and that, in addition, it had to assume a new responsibility, namely to ensure that its subsidiaries abided by Part IV of the act, which deals with communications with the public and so on.

However, the Official Languages Act is not administered by Transport Canada. It is administered elsewhere.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: So the answer to my question is yes. A mistake has been made. At any rate, Air Canada, with its subsidiaries, whether this be in Halifax or in the Magdalen Islands, should have provided services in both languages.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Basically, the answer is yes.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Good, thank you.

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

Senator Lise Bacon: People were given a certain amount of time before they had to provide services in both languages.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Except in the Atlantic region, that had to be done immediately.

• 1600

Senator Lise Bacon: The deadlines were met.

I would like to know whether or not you are keeping statistics on complaints filed because of Air Canada's failure to provide services in both languages and I would like to know what you do in the case of other carriers.

I am in favour of scrutinizing Air Canada, but there are other air carriers in Canada. Do you keep statistics on all air carriers or just on Air Canada?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: The Commissioner or Treasury Board keep statistics on complaints filed. There is perhaps a type of general complaint that is filed and that may be forwarded to the department or the Canadian Transportation Agency with respect to another carrier's failure to provide service, but no other carrier has to fulfil obligations under the Official Languages Act.

Senator Lise Bacon: How is that?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: The private sector is like that.

Senator Lise Bacon: I feel that Air Canada is being criticized, but no one is saying anything about the other air carriers that are not subject, as Air Canada is, to the legislation and who do not provide bilingual services. We are criticizing someone in absentia, first of all. I would like Air Canada to appear at some point and answer our questions. In addition, we do not say anything about the others who do not provide such services, who are not subject to the legislation, because they were not privatized. They were already privatized and they were never subject to any legislation.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): They will be appearing, Senator.

Senator Lise Bacon: I hope, Mr. and Madam Joint Chairs, that you are going to have them appear.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If necessary, we will even compel them to appear.

Senator Lise Bacon: I will help you on that matter.

Reference was also made to a survey conducted by Air Canada pursuant to its Treasury Board obligations—you talked about this earlier—with respect to official languages. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether or not demand was sufficient to warrant service in French; a figure of 5% was mentioned. How much progress has been made in determining this measurement? Have we received any preliminary or final results? Can the results be published or will they be published? Has Treasury Board kept you abreast of the results?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: No, once again, Treasury Board is going to be the one to tell you whether or not they have been advised of the results, because when you get right down to it, it is Air Canada which is attempting, on its own, during the transition period, to evaluate the locations where it must ensure that service is in place as of July 5 of this year. I think that they are still in the data-gathering period so that they will be able to determine their obligations, something that had not been done previously since their obligations in the regions were not at all clear.

Senator Lise Bacon: You do not therefore have any information about what Treasury Board is doing with them?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: No, and at any rate, I would have allowed them to provide their own answers.

Senator Lise Bacon: Very well. Thank you very much.

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

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

I just have a couple of questions that are bothering me a bit. In particular, you said that in the case of emergencies, and even emergencies involving air carriers, there was a cassette to provide French instructions. When the plane is falling out of the sky, is there a special cassette to tell us where to go?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): What you're supposed to do with your head?

Mr. Yvon Godin: The way that we deal with our official languages in Canada does not make sense, in my view. That means that a francophone who boards a plane... As long as the plane is in the air flying, there is no emergency. It's when it starts to fall that we have a problem, and I wouldn't like to be inside when its nose dives. What cassette will you put in to the tape recorder to give me instructions if I don't speak English?

An hon. member: You will find out when you get to heaven.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have a second question. As a carrier, how many times do we have to remind you that when we go to the counter in Ottawa, the national capital, to be served in... I don't have a problem because I speak both languages, but the francophone who goes to the counter—and I asked this question at this committee two weeks ago—who has spent 30 minutes in line to get where he is and who sees his plane take off, when the person to whom he is speaking doesn't speak his language at all... The official languages are French and English. This concerns Air Canada. You can no longer put the blame on Canadian Airlines. This is what is going on at the Air Canada counter. I do not want to be mean, but this does not mean a service where you can be told to wait a minute, so that he or she can go and find somebody else. You arrive at the counter, and the other person doesn't speak our language. That is my second question.

• 1605

No, I think that I have asked my three questions. I had a question on emergency situations... Oh yes, the flight attendants. It's the same thing. I have travelled. I have a problem with this 5% figure and all of those things. When I travel, I travel throughout the country. I'm not going to the United States or Toronto. When you leave from Toronto to go somewhere else... I went to British Columbia in December and I can tell you that the service was really pitiful. I tried to speak French, but nobody was ever able to answer me. I am talking about Air Canada, not Canadian or a subsidiary.

I have asked three questions and I would like three answers. I hope that it will not be next week, with the next witness who will be here.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Unfortunately, except for the first...

Mr. Yvon Godin: It is my question...

Ms. Valérie Dufour: ...about safety.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There should be a copy of that tape in case of an emergency.

An hon. member: When you get to heaven.

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): There are rumours...

Ms. Valérie Dufour: The training issue is completely separate. As far as I know, the regulations of language use specify that passengers must be informed about technical aspects, and that is all. As far as the other aspects go, you are right: if Air Canada does not offer these services where it has an obligation to do so, it is in the wrong.

Mr. Yvon Godin: We have been talking about being in the wrong, but what are the penalties? There are 140 complaints. What are the penalties in those cases? What are you doing to put a stop to this? Either Air Canada has this obligation, or it does not. Are we going to be saying the same thing every year?

I have been a member of the Official Languages Committee for four years and I have been hearing about the Air Canada problems for four years. When will Air Canada finally indicate that it is going to obey the law and that there will be no more complaints because it is going to take action? Is there an agreement, or are people saying that next time there will be 180 complaints and that is the end of it?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Air Canada will be appearing in two weeks, is that not right, Mr. Chairman?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will see whether the President wants to come or not. Up to now, we have had a great deal of difficulty getting a date from the President of Air Canada. We may have to proceed a different way, but we will see. It will be up to the committee to decide. I hope that there is someone at Air Canada in the room listening today. If not, we could send them the transcription.

Mr. Godin, have you finished?

Mr. Yvon Godin: No. She said that there was one question that she could answer. Will we have to wait two weeks for the other ones?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: I gave an answer that did not satisfy you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Losier-Cool and then Senator Rivest.

Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is a follow-up to Mr. Godin's question, but I believe that I will keep it aside and ask it more directly when the Air Canada people come.

It was when Mr. Goldbloom was commissioner that we started to talk about the many complaints regarding Air Canada, and now, in the East, with Air Nova, it is even worse.

On page 8 of your presentation, you talked about the obligations of the subsidiaries with respect to official languages. When we talk about subsidiaries, does that mean companies like Air Nova?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Yes.

Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Can you tell me where the 5% figure comes from with respect to needs? In the Official Languages Act, there is no mention of 5% or 3%. The Official Languages Act talks about the equality of two peoples. Why is a single group, like Air Canada, subject to the act? That is where the problem lies. People make complaints and no one knows where they go or what is done about them. The Commissioner said that she has received 30 complaints, and it is true that Air Canada is the subject of one-third of all complaints received by the Commissioner. Can this matter go further? The complaints are centred on “where numbers warrant.” There is the rub.

• 1610

Ms. Valérie Dufour: The Official Languages Act, which uses this wording, dates back to the 1980s. We have amended an act that governs one carrier. It invokes the Official Languages Act as it is written, and it is the Official Languages Act that sets out obligations where numbers warrant. It is not the Minister of Transport who invented this way of measuring demand. It is the approach used in a country where language obligations apply according to demand and where people who are subject to the act must determine whether their sector is bound by that obligation. Basically, it comes down to counting heads.

Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Ms. Dufour, Mr. Pigeon, what do you recommend the committee do with respect to Air Canada? Do we need to amend the Official Languages Act? There will never be an appetite to change it. What do you think we can do so that we could one day have fewer complaints? What do you suggest to the committee?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Mr. Pigeon will answer you from the legal point of view, and I will take a more economic standpoint, if you like.

Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: I think that I would rather have your standpoint.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: In my view, when Air Canada understands that it is good business to serve clients in their language, that it is a positive gesture, the tide will turn. That is where we play our role. It's good business. But we have no tools to legislate that. The minister can use his moral authority, but we officials, when we meet officials or officers of Air Canada, can only remind them that people are sensitive to the fact that they are not using the second language enough. I feel that they will have to understand that it is good business to serve clients properly in both languages.

But that is a huge challenge for the subsidiaries because there is a need for language training. Obligations have been imposed on them, for example, that they should keep Canadian airlines staff, who were essentially unilingual. There is a series of challenges, and that is whey it was decided to allow a transition period in the airline restructuring process, owing to the fact that Air Canada absorbed many employees and was not able to meet that obligation. The situation is evolving.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Pigeon, you had a legal viewpoint to offer?

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: I do not have anything to add, but was only going to say that Parliament, in Bill C-26, has clarified and even extended Air Canada's existing obligation to ensure that its subsidiaries are subject to the obligation of providing their services in both official languages, which was not the case under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Section 10 of the old act did not require that and it still does not, but Parliament extended Air Canada's obligation with Bill C-26, ensuring that its subsidiaries, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of Air Canada, are required to provide services in both official languages every time that Air Canada, if it were providing the service, would be under that obligation. That is the legislative standard that Parliament imposed when it passed Bill C-26.

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

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): In legal terms, do Air Canada and its subsidiaries have the same obligation with respect to official languages?

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: Only Air Canada is bound by the Official Languages Act. The subsidiaries, as such, have no legal obligation in this regard. However, Air Canada must ensure that this obligation is carried out. So the responsibility is on the shoulders of Air Canada.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: That is the problem: Air Canada has a lot more to worry about than policing language use in one of its subsidiaries.

• 1615

In my opinion, the problem—let us talk about the situation outside Quebec for discussion purposes—is that francophones in Canada are concentrated in the areas where air transportation is not generally offered by the big company, Air Canada. So it is basically regional carriers that deal with francophones outside Quebec. It seems to me that the legal obligation imposed on subsidiaries is different in nature from that imposed on Air Canada, which used to be a Crown corporation. The obligation was put into the Privatization Act.

Air Canada has subsidiaries. It has subsidiaries for all sorts of reasons: economic, financial and other reasons. There must be reasons that Air Canada does not operate in the regions. Now Air Canada is told to police things and to try to make sure that its children behave properly. But these children, or subsidiaries, do not always behave properly. Maybe they do not always have the resources they need, and, in particular, they do not have the same legal obligation to do this. Moreover, as Ms. Dufour reminded us, there are no penalties involved. So how do you expect it to work?

I think that there is a problem with the act and that parliamentarians in both chambers of the Parliament of Canada will have to clarify the situation. Otherwise, there are just promises and justifications about whether or not numbers warrant. Air Canada says that it will oversee its subsidiaries on this matter, and that they will behave. But the subsidiaries... Am I oversimplifying or is this the reality?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: The other option was to decide that there was no role to be played, since Air Nova, Air BC and Canadian were completely private companies that had never been subject to official languages obligations.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Parliament must intervene and tell them that, unfortunately, in Canada air services must be offered in both languages. What does it matter what the legal status of these... We can talk to private companies. We can tell them how to conduct their business. These are private companies; I understand that. But we can tell them that we are sorry, but francophones live in various regions across Canada. As Ms. Bacon said, there are other companies as well.

Otherwise, as Senator Losier-Cool said, I have the impression that the number of complaints will continue to rise. There is no doubt of that. They will not be able to do this out of good will; it will not work. It is up to parliamentarians to take their responsibilities. It is not up to you to do this, despite the efforts that you are making here.

Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: That is why I asked you for advice.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: She did not want to tell us directly, but I can say it. It is very impolite, but parliamentarians have to do their work.

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

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to have an interpretation of the 5% rule. We often use the phrase “where numbers warrant.” Is that based strictly on the community? What about service between Lethbridge and Whitehorse? Francophones may not constitute 5% of the population in those communities, so French is not used. They do not contaminate the plane, they only use English. Is that the issue?

Suppose that you have a group of senior citizens travelling across Canada, that they are flying from Lethbridge to Yukon and that about a hundred of them are francophones from Ontario. Will the personnel on board, those responsible, refuse to speak to them in French? I am asking you what the law would say, not what good sense would dictate. I often wonder which of the two takes precedence: good sense or the law.

If a team of francophone lacrosse players comprised 70% of the passengers on an airplane and absolutely wanted to hear French and insisted on it, do they need to be spoken to in English or in French? Does the airline act according to the law or according to good sense?

Finally, is the Official Languages Act there to meet the needs of unilingual people or is it supposed to make people, whether they are francophone or anglophone, feel that they are at home in their own country?

I put about four questions to you.

Senator Lise Bacon: On transport?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes, on transport. Then, I will talk to Air Canada. We will be talking to Treasury Board and others. I would like to have your opinion on that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Who would like to answer?

• 1620

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: I would say that the Official Languages Act, whose application was extended to Air Canada and some other private enterprises, defines what significant demand actually is. It's in the regulations that will be explained by Treasury Board officials next week. You find the definition there of what is meant by “significant demand”.

Basically, in Bill C-26, they didn't want to adopt a regime distinct from official languages. They took the regime that already exist in the Official Languages Act and which applies automatically to the federal institutions senator Gauthier was referring to and it was broadened to also apply to Air Canada. In Bill C-26, they went a step further. They made Air Canada legally accountable for the services offered by its subsidiaries even though these subsidiaries are not acting as and for Air Canada.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: That's the legislative choice that was made.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: That's the legislative choice that was made.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What does “accountable” means?

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: It's in the Official Languages Act...

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I mean what Senator Rivest was mentioning before. What does “accountable” mean? What does that involve?

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: In the Official Languages Act, there is already a procedure provided for the implementation of the act. There's Part IX, I believe, that concerns the complaints to the Commissioner. There's Part X on legal recourse for the implementation of the obligations of those subject to the act.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Can you, at Transport Canada, enforce that act?

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: The application of the Official Languages Act was broadened so that the implementation mechanisms provided for in the Official Languages Act could apply directly to the private companies, as if those private companies that are subject to it were federal institutions themselves.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: At Transport Canada, one of your concerns is Air Canada's and other companies aircrafts. Who enforces the act? I am not asking you who makes up a list of complaints and is then told that it's too bad but we didn't have time to speak French or that we'll do a bit more later on. Who takes them before the courts? Who whips them? Who strips them of their licence?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: That's not the same thing.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Why are you saying it's not the same thing?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: There's nothing in the Canada Transportation Act that would allow us to strip Air Canada of its operating licence for an offence against the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Why not?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: The Official Languages Act is managed by Treasury Board. The complaints are addressed to them. They are the ones who do the follow-up for all that. We try to make a huge distinction between the mandate of the Minister of Transport, which is to take care of transportation issues and a series of other obligations that fall within the purview of federal institutions, like the Official Languages Act. It's the same thing for other companies.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We can come back to that.

Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I will be back with a couple of my own little questions after that and then I will give the floor to Mr. Gauthier.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I have two questions for you, Ms. Dufour.

First, when you answered Senator Rivest, you told us there were two ways and that one would be for Air Nova and the subsidiaries which, contrary to Air Canada, didn't have an obligation to respect the Official Languages Act... You didn't complete the answer.

Were you trying to tell us that Transport Canada would like to recommend that the subsidiaries wouldn't have to respect the Official Languages Act anymore?

• 1625

Ms. Valérie Dufour: They were never under that obligation. Our option would have been to do nothing, simply to tell Air Canada that it could become the dominant carrier in Canada with subsidiaries as the application is only valid for the main carrier, Air Canada itself, and to simply leave the regional carriers free.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: That's not what happened.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: No.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Your obligation is to make them respect that.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: No. What we did, because we were faced with an air restructuring situation where the dominant carrier, with its subsidiaries, had such a high percentage of all the domestic air transportation, is that we proposed—and the parliamentary committees supported us because this was debated twice—to ask Air Canada to have the supplementary responsibility to ensure that its subsidiaries flying under its own code—and the codes on the tickets are all Air Canada codes—offer services to the public in both languages where numbers warrant. Everything with an Air Canada code on the ticket should be under that obligation. But that's an increase in the obligation existing before.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: It's not an increase in the obligation, Madam, that's the new law and that's what the parliamentarians decided. It's an obligation; it's not an extra obligation. It is their obligation to provide services in both languages. Stop saying that you've made Air Canada more accountable than it used to be. It wanted the monopoly and the condition was to offer services in both languages, period, end of discussion. Let's stop saying they're doing a good job and they're not all that bad. they have to do what the law tells them to. Otherwise, your recommendation is to soften the act and go back to what existed before because Air Canada is having problems with its subsidiaries.

All I'm asking you is to do your job. And Air Canada isn't giving us any gifts; it's an obligation it has under the law. Air Canada got the monopoly, part of the monopoly; now they can do their job. It's no more complicated than that and it's up to you to do yours.

I'll come back to what Senator Gauthier was saying. I have the 1999-2000 report from the Commissioner of Official Languages. On page 55, it states, still concerning air transportation:

Complaints find a home

[...] the Office of the Commissioner reached an agreement with Transport Canada whereby the two institutions will cooperate in resolving complaints about safety briefings aboard aircraft.

So you have to cooperate in matters of safety and there are complaints. This matter has raised many complaints. Even if what you have are cassettes, some have certainly complained that the cassette or something else wasn't working. How do you deal with these complaints when you get them?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: That's on the civil aviation side. I work in air policy. My colleagues working on the civil aviation side have a rule on the use of both official languages for the safety messages. If the rule isn't being followed, there will either be a monetary penalty or another kind of penalty for a specific complaint because of non-observance of a civil aviation rule. It's clear that my colleagues on the civil aviation side will agree with the Commissioner concerning this kind of complaint and if the complaint sent to the Commissioner of Official Languages concerns an offence against a technical regulatory obligation in the civil aviation area, it will be sent to civil aviation which will apply the regulation. That's the difference between that kind of complaint and a complaint on service in general, in other words a complaint having to do with the “coffee, tea, or milk” or how to buckle your seatbelts and so on. That's the distinction. The safety regulations are managed by the people who write the regulations in my department on the civil aviation side and, yes, they have to have an agreement with the Commissioner.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I'd like to say this about that. First of all, when you said that the subsidiaries never had an obligation, allow me to say or to tell you that there are all kinds of people who think that they had that obligation and that it was in question. According to some, it was a way for Air Canada to get around the act because it said that its subsidiaries weren't subject to that obligation and that was clarified. In passing, some of us believe that they did have the obligation and that it's nothing new.

• 1630

Second, I would point out, and I'll have specific details, that one of the members of this House, the Liberal Party whip, had to fly from Vancouver last week and the safety procedures were not announced in both languages. That's the point I'm getting you to.

You say that the Department of Transport is responsible for safety. Fine. So all Canadian air carriers have an obligation to announce their safety procedures in both languages. That's true? And Transport Canada is responsible. Is that true?

How do you, at Transport Canada, make sure this is being done properly?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: To my knowledge, we do it in three ways: we check up in response to a complaint; we have inspectors who regularly travel on airplanes to ensure conformity; and we do spot checks generally speaking.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Does the department have any internal reports on this matter?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: There should be some.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): There should be some or there are some?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Well, yes, but the person doing the inspection from Vancouver might be a Vancouver inspector. His report is sent through a network. I'm not part of the regulations network.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Could we ask you to provide us, because I imagine you don't have them here, details on that aspect of the work and responsibilities of Transport Canada? How many people are assigned to this work? Where are they? What do they do? What kind of reports do they send to the authorities to be able to verify that in actual fact the Official Languages Act, in the area of safety, is being respected? It's up to us to make sure that it is. We would need that rather quickly.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: I'll put your request to my colleagues responsible for safety.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Here's another question. The time I have is running out because I've already taken up two minutes and a half. What steps may the minister take to correct a situation when a weakness is detected? What steps do you take? What steps have you already taken?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: As I can't answer the first one, I will prepare...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, no. We're talking about safety, here. Theoretically, do you know? Can the department fine an air carrier?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Yes, absolutely.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Could you refer us to the regulation in question?

Senator Lise Bacon: We have to invite the people who are in charge of those matters at the Department of Transport. At the time being, we're putting the people before us, and who are doing their best, in an embarrassing situation. They're not the ones in charge of that matter. So why don't you invite the people in charge of transportation safety who get the complaints?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I wouldn't mind doing that, Senator. However, I did ask for permission to put a few questions. I would point out also that we did ask the Air Canada people to come and talk to us about that. If they can't do it, we'll go get the people who can. I agree. We thought that we had the people here who could answer those questions. That's all.

Mr. Pigeon, you're a legal advisor aren't you?

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Don't you think that what we're referring to...

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: I thought that we had come here today to answer questions on the Official Languages Act and on regulations adopted under this act or Bill C-26. The regulations that you are referring to were adopted under the Aeronautics Act. These regulations are binding in just the same way as those passed under any other Canadian legislation and as such they must be implemented.

However, all that I am saying is that the obligations that we have mentioned deal with safety and are one aspect of security regulations which even apply to air transport services. These regulations were adopted under the Aeronautics Act. I am sure we could provide you with information on the implementation of these regulations. However, I was not led to believe that that was the reason we had been invited here today and that is why we are not prepared to answer questions on this issue.

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

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I agree with the chair and Ms. Bacon. Ms. Bacon is correct when she says that we should invite people who can brief us on the facts of air safety.

I have a couple of questions for Ms. Dufour. Firstly, "where numbers warrant" are not the terms used in the Official Languages Act. The Official Languages Act refers to “where there is a significant demand”. We have to make a distinction between these two terms. I have spent a lot of time talking about this issue in this very room. There is a difference between these two terms.

• 1635

Mr. Pigeon, there are shortcomings in the current legislation that Air Canada is going to implement. I am sure of this because Air Canada is already using these loopholes. They have subcontracted services to Mr. Rivest, who owns an airline serving northern Quebec. Air Canada holds the licence for this route, but it has subcontracted it to Mr. Rivest. As a third party, Mr. Rivest finds himself, as I am, tied to the Official Languages Act obligations. He is subject to this act.

Air Canada is currently using this system with Canadian Airlines. If Canadian replaces Air Canada on a major route, which in my opinion does happen, Canadian is subject to the Official Languages Act because it is part of Air Canada, the airline that it is replacing. Is that right?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Yes, this is a stipulation of Bill C-26.

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: And it is for that reason, Senator Gauthier, that we have added subsection (8) to section 10 of Bill C-26. This subsection reads as follows:

(8) For greater certainty, subsections (2) and (7) [...]

We added these subsections.

[...] do not affect any duty that the Corporation—

ie. Air Canada.

[...] may have under section 25 of the Official Languages Act.

It is section 25 which requires Air Canada, when services are provided on its behalf, to ensure that the third party providing the service for Air Canada uphold the Official Languages Act. However, the duty falls on Air Canada and not on the third party.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to pick up on what Ms. Dufour said earlier. If I misunderstood what you said, please accept my apologies because I am deaf. I am reading what you said and sometimes slight errors can slip in. If I understood correctly you stated that you have received complaints regarding safety in airplanes. Is that right?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Yes, in the transportation division, but not in the civil aviation and air policy divisions.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You work in the transportation division.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Yes, but in the...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I see that you are even Director General of Air Policy. That is a fine job title.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: It's a fine job title, granted, but there is also the title of Director General of Civil Aviation. This person is responsible for air regulations. This person governs the implementation of Official Languages Act regulations in terms of safety messages.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Could I lodge a complaint with Transport Canada?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Yes, but not with my office.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: With your office?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: No, no.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who would I have to send my complaint to?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: To the Director General of Civil Aviation.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are you the person responsible for assessing complaints? No. So someone else does that. So you're not really up on complaints. Are you part of the problem or the solution?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: I think that we have taken steps to ensure that the language-related duties governing Air Canada have not been weakened and we have, in fact, pushed the envelope to make sure that Bill C-26 clearly define Air Canada's duties in terms of its subsidiaries, where there was ambiguity.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have one last question for Mr. Pigeon. Is Air Canada governed by Parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act? I'm talking about communication, fair representation and the working language. You are a lawyer, aren't you?

Mr. Jacques Pigeon: Yes. The way I interpret section 10, subparagraph (1), of the Air Canada Public Participation Act is that the entire legislation applies to Air Canada and the corporation is not exempt from any of the parts. The subsection which was passed is as follows:

The Official Languages Act applies to the Corporation.

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

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Joint Chairman, Ms. Dufour and Mr. Pigeon. We have many questions which...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would very much like Air Canada to appear before this committee because the House will adjourn in the near future. I hope that we will be able to meet with them before the House adjourns.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Well, I am not a party to privileged information on when we are going to adjourn. We will of course, do our very best to have them appear before this committee. No, no, we will ask them to meet with this committee, even if that means physically bringing them here. We will get them here.

• 1640

Excuse me, Mr. Drouin. Please carry on.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Thank you.

In terms of policy in air transportation, Ms. Dufour, it would seem that there has been an ongoing debate for many years on the official languages used in providing services to Canadians. Don't you think that it would be appropriate that all air transportation companies be required, from a given time, as soon as possible, to ensure that any person involved in providing customer services be bilingual in Canada? It is a very hypothetical question and I don't know whether you are in a position to answer it. It's really up to your own discretion. Do you think that would be feasible?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Very briefly, I would say that it is not feasible, because you have...

Mr. Claude Drouin: Let's imagine that we are 5 or 10 years down the road, to really be certain of solving the problem once and for all.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Just a moment. The Official Languages Act, which falls under federal jurisdiction, covers these bodies. I was under the impression that it was clear that the federal government could not suddenly and on its own initiative decide that it had overall authority over the implementation of language-related duties in general or specific areas.

The Official Languages Act applies to federal institutions under the government's jurisdiction. The status of Air Canada was maintained, despite its privatization. All the same, you cannot just pass a law that will force McDonald's or grocery stores to provide service in certain languages, because it would be a good thing if everyone could be served in their own language.

We were able to maintain the obligations of the carrier that remained Air Canada and that became the dominant carrier.

Mr. Claude Drouin: It's much less dangerous to eat a Big Mac than to find oneself in an airplane in an emergency, in need of instructions in one's language.

I agree, Ms. Bacon, that it is dangerous sometimes.

Some hon. members: Oh! oh!

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I believe that we gave the monopoly to Air Canada because that company had some social responsibilities, but it is not meeting them.

Mr. Claude Drouin: A date could be set, a few years from now, to allow these companies to adjust because these are fairly major and expensive requirements. Perhaps it would be a good idea to pick a date that is fairly far away, so that the problem can be resolved once and for all.

You are aware, Ms. Dufour, that people's safety is important. On my way back from Germany last Sunday, safety instructions were given in French, English and German. Here in Canada, we have trouble getting this information in French if we are west of Toronto. That is why I thought that, if we had such a measure... It may indeed be difficult.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Without comment. A wish.

Mr. Claude Drouin: Yes, it's a wish.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Would anyone else like to speak?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Yes, I would like to say a word briefly.

Ms. Dufour, earlier on you mentioned a safety instruction recording on flights. I know that Air Nova has one. When I fly eastward, I often realize this.

If there were a real emergency, a real safety problem in the airplane, when the flight attendant does not speak a word of French and there are francophones on board, what happens before the airplane crashes? What safety measures are taken? And who is responsible at the time?

Ms. Valérie Dufour: The flight attendant and the pilot have full responsibility for the airplane, but I would say...

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): They don't speak French.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: I don't want to trivialize the question, but if you were in an emergency in the United States, you would have the information in English. If you were in France, you would have it in French. If you were in Germany, you would have it in German.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): It is given in three languages in Europe.

Senator Lise Bacon: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Over here, we hit the ground after the first one.

Some hon. members: Oh! oh!

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Order, please. We are nearing the end. Do you have more questions?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): No, but we are not taking this seriously.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier. He won't be able to say again that we don't let him have the floor.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I don't want to correct, but to reinforce, what I said at the beginning. I found it in the report, on page 55, and I will read it to you word for word:

[...] the Office of the Commissioner reached an agreement with Transport Canada whereby the two institutions will cooperate in resolving complaints about safety briefings aboard aircraft.

• 1645

If you haven't seen this agreement, could you find out about it and send me a copy.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: Yes, Mr. Bélanger has already requested it.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That would be very kind.

Ms. Valérie Dufour: We will attempt to obtain as many details as possible for you: who, how and how much.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Forward it to the clerk.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): All things considered, Ms. Dufour, if it isn't too much to ask, and without intending to offend anyone, could you and Mr. Pigeon take note of the questions that were asked here today, the questions that are within the department's responsibility, perhaps under civil aviation or a different director general—that's not important—and provide us with the answers? If the committee thinks that it would be productive to invite this other person as a witness, it will do so. However, the information that you will be sending to us, next week perhaps, might be adequate for the time being.

Mr. Claude Drouin: To make sure that you have all the questions, you'll have to get the blues.

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

Mr. Claude Drouin: We will ask for the blues, to ensure we get all the questions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So, we will have all that available.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Do we have a subcommittee on the agenda and procedure here? If there is one, perhaps it could follow up on this.

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

Senator Lise Bacon: What I would suggest is that, instead of going through all the blues from this meeting, we schedule a meeting like this one with the people at the Transport Department who look after transportation safety, so that we can ask them our questions. Their evidence might make matters clear.

If we begin all over again, and Ms. Dufour and Mr. Pigeon go through all the blues to answer all of our questions, the process will be stretched out unnecessarily. We will never get to the end. I think that the best thing to do, a more straightforward plan, would be to meet with these people and ask them questions.

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

Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: In answer to Ms. Dufour, I regret to inform her that the federal government is responsible for certain public services, including transportation, throughout Canada.

Municipalities have responsibility for urban transportation. Provincial governments have their responsibilities and they have the right to require that public services be provided in both languages. They have this right, Ms. Dufour. Whether you like it or not, the federal government could require the entire aviation sector to provide service in both languages. It does do this in the area of safety. These are the main reasons why we are able to force independent operators to provide service in the languages for which we are responsible.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I know, Mr. Laframboise. We will eventually have a report to produce. You could perhaps save your comments until then.

Senator Rivest.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: As far as safety is concerned, I just would like to say that what we are asking people to do is of course within their responsibility. However, the issue of respecting the French language—that's what we're talking about—in the aviation sector in Canada is not... Complaints about safety have been lodged, but the problem is much bigger. We should not restrict the discussion and limit it to that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I understand. In any event, the Treasury Board will appear next Tuesday. The suggestions have been noted and the steering committee will have to... We are having trouble matching up our remaining time with the times the witnesses are available. We will do our best to have all those people appear before the end of May, so that we will be able to produce a report, if that is what the committee wants.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: As far as witnesses are concerned, l'Association des gens de l'air du Québec asked us...

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

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Could...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That issue is also being addressed.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The steering committee has already taken care of that. We are doing what the steering committee asked us to do.

If there are no further questions, I would like to thank Mr. Pigeon and Ms. Dufour for your patience and your indulgence. As you can see, there is a strong resolve from members around this table to ensure that the Official Languages Act is upheld and enforced.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.