Official Languages Committee on Oct. 27th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Good morning, everybody.

Welcome to the 36th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

It is our pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), to be hearing from representatives of Air Canada concerning Air Canada's compliance with the Official Languages Act. First, I would like to thank them for coming to appear before our committee on such short notice.

We have Ms. Louise McEvoy, General Manager, Official Languages and Diversity, and

Mr. Joseph Galimberti, director of government and community relations.

Welcome to the committee.

We also have Ms. Priscille LeBlanc, Vice-President, Corporate Communications. Welcome to our committee, Ms. LeBlanc. This is a first for you.

Before starting, I would like to take the opportunity to offer my birthday wishes to Ms. Guay, whose birthday it is today.

Ms. McEvoy will be reading us the text that is being distributed right now.

[Louise McEvoy, General Manager, Official Languages and Diversity, Air Canada]

Good morning and thank you.

Honourable Members of Parliament, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear today. As Mr. Blaney said, my name is Louise McEvoy and I am the General Manager of Languages and Diversity at Air Canada. I am joined today by my colleagues Priscille LeBlanc, Vice-President, Corporate Communications and Official Languages Champion, and by Joseph Galimberti, Director of Government and Community Relations.

Our commitment to offering our customers service in the official language of their choice is a fundamental and unwavering priority for Air Canada. This commitment is embedded in all our corporate programs throughout the airline, including but not limited to recruiting, hiring, and training. Regardless of economic circumstance, we continue to invest considerable financial and human resources in programs intended to enhance bilingual capacity across the Air Canada network.

And Air Canada does meet this language commitment thousands of times on a daily basis and without any fanfare as we transport over 34 million customers a year on thousands of flights and through dozens of airports, with relatively few complaints. The trend in 2009 is very encouraging in this regard. Clearly no airline in this country, and few others worldwide, provide bilingual service as consistently as Air Canada does.

In this pre-Olympic year, Air Canada has stepped up our efforts to further bilingual capacity at the airline by multiplying staff awareness sessions and increasing our internal ability to develop and train truly bilingual employees. We've sought to move beyond teaching simply the language of work, instead training our employees in the basics of the French language.

We continue to face an uphill battle in seeking to increase bilingual capacity through recruitment, as we have mentioned in previous appearances before this committee and before the Senate committee on official languages. It is an unfortunate reality that we simply cannot hire 100% bilingual candidates outside Quebec.

As a direct result, and despite sincere efforts throughout the organization, our bilingual ratio has not moved since the merger with Canadian Airlines, which, due to that airline's largely unilingual and western-based workforce, decreased our ratio from 60% to 40%.

In 2009 we sought to hire airport agents for the summer period and had difficulty finding bilingual candidates even with publicity campaigns in each hiring station. Our objective for the new hires was 100% bilingual capacity, and we have been able to hire only 67% bilingual agents.

To further put this challenge into perspective, for years now we have hired flight attendants in Montreal and transferred them to operating centres like Toronto and Vancouver to start their careers—because of the lack of qualified bilingual applicants in those cities. Over 575 flight attendants have been transferred.

Our operating challenges are such that we must provide service in both languages on more routes than would be strictly necessary according to the obligation to provide service in both languages only where numbers warrant.

Why is that you may ask?

A flight attendant, on any given day, can start their day on a route where language obligations would not apply because of this provision, then spend the rest of their day working on routes which have a requirement for bilingual service. As a result we have been forced to take the position that all of our routes must have bilingual capabilities regardless of the "where numbers warrant" provision.

This operational constraint, common to all airlines, actually serves to diminish our ability to provide better service in both languages on those routes where we have an obligation to provide service in French and English.

Each year we provide French language training to hundreds of frontline employees and, as importantly, in maintaining their skills.

But in 2009 we have decided, in a more concentrated effort than ever before and despite the substantial cost of doing so, to pull employees from operations and enrol them in language classes in order to improve their language skills and increase Air Canada's bilingual capacity.

For instance, we have held mandatory sessions for employees not qualified in French in Vancouver, where all airport agents have attended the "Un moment s'il vous plaît!" workshops. Further Air Canada employees from other cities will also attend this course in the coming weeks.

Our objective through these sessions is not only to reiterate to our employees our customers' right to be addressed in the official language of their choice, but to give them tips and tools on how to do so, even if they are not officially qualified.

A few weeks ago, we met with our counterparts from other federal institutions subject to the Official Languages Act that will deal with the travelling public during the upcoming Olympic Games, such as Canada Border Services Agency, CATSA, and the Vancouver and Toronto airport authorities. We met to discuss and exchange best practices and to work towards the goal of offering travellers a consistent experience when they visit Vancouver this February.

For most of our customers, the service from our ground and cabin crews is what is most apparent from a language service-delivery perspective. However, the most crucial instances in which consistent bilingual service must be provided are those related to the safety and security of our passengers. As such, not only are Transport Canada language regulations applied through initial and annual recurrent training on safety direction, but our pilots and flight attendants continually train on how to react in an emergency situation.

To ensure, as best we can, consistency on each flight, before each takeoff we inform and remind passengers of safety procedures in both official languages. Bilingual briefings are given to passengers with special needs and to passengers seated in emergency exit rows. Passenger announcements, whether service- or safety-related, are always done in both official languages. The safety videos now have captions in both official languages.

It is a fact that not all passengers, however, pay attention to these briefings. Employees have been asked, through a corporate message, to ensure, when they travel for business or pleasure, that they actively follow the flight attendant or safety video instructions to set an example for other passengers.

Since our last appearance before this Committee, we have modified our invitations for customer feedback on Official Languages. We have replaced the comment card previously found in seat pockets with a standing column in the enRoute magazine as we believe this will ensure the message is more consistently available to the travelling public. The article informs passengers of their Official Languages rights, invites comment on the level of service received and provides passengers with the opportunity to nominate employees who demonstrate our commitment to serve them in their official language of choice for the Linguistic Dialogue Award, which Air Canada also launched in 2009. Our customers' feedback has increased since we made these adjustments, and I am happy to report that several of our employees have been nominated by customers for the award.

As we close our remarks, we would like to acknowledge that Air Canada is by no means perfect from a bilingual service delivery standpoint. We are certainly aware that, like all federal institutions subject to the Official Languages Act—including the Government of Canada—we are far from perfect, and that we can and must do better. We've always acknowledged this point. We've routinely asked the government for assistance in improving our linguistic capabilities, but, unfortunately, we have been consistently denied. We only ask that Parliamentarians compare us to our peers and not to perfection.

Here are some facts for your consideration. Despite a unanimous recommendation by the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages from their report of 2002, we did not receive any support from government as we integrated the 87% English-unilingual workforce of the former Canadian Airlines into our own, at a cost of roughly $140 million which Air Canada absorbed exclusively.

The situation defies logic at times. In 2003 and 2005, we were invited to and did apply for language training funds through a Treasury Board program called the "Official Languages Innovation Fund." We were rejected, in writing, by the then Vice President of the Public Service Agency of Canada because although we have the same language obligations as other "federal institutions" or agencies, Treasury Board considered us not to be a "federal institution", but rather a private corporation. We were also advised that Air Canada should request that these invitations to file applications no longer be sent to us, given that our applications would never be accepted.

Although parliamentarians and senators have in the past recommended otherwise, it has been the position of Government of Canada officials that although Air Canada has the obligations of a federal institution, we will not have access to the language training funding opportunities afforded those same institutions.

Since the government wants to achieve a public policy objective by imposing official languages obligations on a private corporation such as Air Canada, it is only reasonable and fair that Parliament also ensure that this private corporation has access to the same public financial support to which federal institutions with similar obligations have access.

We believe the government must make a choice. It must either create a level playing field in which Air Canada is treated like all other federal institutions subject to the Official Languages Act--which means making Air Canada and its subsidiaries eligible to apply for federal programs--or it must treat Air Canada like all other airlines that are not subject to the Official Languages Act.

In closing, allow me to re-state our commitment as a corporation to meeting our current official language obligations. We do take our responsibility seriously and have a proven track record of taking steps to correct deficiencies in the measure we can when these are identified. We will continue to serve, and improve our ability to serve, our customers in the language of their choice, wherever we fly. For us, this simply makes good business sense.

Thank you for you time today; we are now willing to take any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Ms. McEvoy.

We'll now begin our first round with Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to be here before you this morning to personally ask you some questions and also to hear some criticisms that are reported to me when I'm absent.

First, thanks to the three of you for being here today. It's strange but when we receive representatives from Air Canada, we often hear the same rhetoric, that it is a private company that shouldn't be treated differently from its competitors in the same field in the world. However, one thing should nevertheless not be forgotten: someone somewhere decided at some point that a merger between the two companies was desirable. There were rules and conditions that had to be met, that were required by the Government of Canada at that time—

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

It was required by Parliament, not just by the government.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

That's even better, Mr. Galipeau; it was required by Parliament.

I didn't sign that agreement; it was the airlines that accepted those rules. Once the rules were accepted, you're saying we should discharge you from that responsibility. I'm sorry, but that's part of the initial rules.

I nevertheless want to make a positive comment, Ms. McEvoy: the flight attendants are making increasing efforts. I can't deny that and I can say nothing negative on that subject.

You continued your presentation and I said to myself that things were still the same, that we were hearing from the Air Canada people and we were still getting the same comments.

You said a little earlier, talking about service: “[...] offering our customers service in the official language of their choice is a fundamental and unwavering priority for Air Canada.” You understand that service is one thing, a face-to-face contact, but you also have to consider what we have in front of us. In the seat pockets where the magazine is inserted—

[Louise McEvoy]

That's enRoute magazine.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you.

enRoute magazine contains information for people who would like to complain and information on the Dialogue Award.

I'm going to relate an experience that I've had a number of times. Today I've brought a little more information. Even though I'm repeating myself, no one ever listens to me. I hope that today I have the right representatives of official languages, government relations and corporate communications in front of me.

I'll tell you the facts. I took flight 8767 from Quebec City to Ottawa on Sunday, October 18, departing at 9:15 p.m. The aircraft was a DASH-1. This is probably the third time I've told this story. The government people are probably tired of hearing it, but we're in committee and I'm telling you the exact facts. When the door to the flight deck is shut, there is a small sign there that reads, in English: “Do not smoke in lavatory.” I wanted to photograph that sign, but you know we can't use our cellphones on board an aircraft. So I wasn't able to do that, but you can check for yourself.

In French, the sign reads “Ne pas fumer les toilettes.” This is probably at least the third time I've reported this situation to various stakeholders, whether it be the Commissioner of Official Languages or Air Canada representatives. The sign reads: “Ne pas fumer les toilettes.” Either I need new contact lenses or someone will be replacing that sign at some point.

Ms. McEvoy, this is an example of what you call customer service. Yes, personal contact between the flight attendant and the customer is important, but I have reported this situation this many times—and I've done it before Air Canada representatives who have appeared here—and nothing has changed. Perhaps it's unfortunate that I'm the one who travels on board that aircraft every time—the future will tell—but, as a francophone, I'm not tempted to smoke the toilets. What a nice translation! I can't believe someone can't remove that sticker from the door and put up one that's in proper French. You could say that an effort had been made, at least, that it was translated by an automated service.

I'm making that comment and, if you wish, I can give you my boarding pass, which will enable you to do the necessary search.

[Louise McEvoy]

All right.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I know time is passing quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have about a minute left, Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

You say you receive relatively few complaints. I'm not asking you to comment on what I've just told you, but simply to correct the situation.

As regards the complaint form that was replaced by a questionnaire in the enRoute magazine, have you seen any changes since then? Have there been any positive or negative changes?

[Louise McEvoy]

There's been more feedback in general, and fewer complaints this year than last year. In general, the trend is downward this year. We've received roughly half as many complaints as last year through the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

That's perhaps, among other things, because if you don't consult the magazine, you don't see the card. Your flight attendants used to draw people's attention to the seat pocket in front of them. People used it, could take the complaint card and write their comments on it, whereas now they don't have the choice: they have to go through the entire magazine to find the little section of the article that talks about official languages. It's much harder.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. D'Amours.

Ms. McEvoy?

[Louise McEvoy]

The situation is more the reverse for us: customer feedback is on the rise. Employees have also been nominated for the Dialogue Award.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. D'Amours.

Now we'll go to Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

For me and, I would say, for a number of other parliamentarians, Air Canada is an official languages offender. I heard what you said, but that justifies nothing. You have the audacity to tell us this: “We only ask that parliamentarians compare us to our peers and not to perfection.” But there's no one else with whom we can compare you. You are required under the Official Languages Act to meet the needs of Quebec and Canadian citizens who use your services.

In the second round, I'll talk to you about a complaint I recently filed concerning Air Canada, when I travelled on the Ottawa-Vancouver route. It concerns French-language services, which were in fact non-existent on that route the day I took the plane.

The Linguistic Action Plan 2001-2010 was written at Air Canada. But you've stopped updating your results since 2007. Why?

[Louise McEvoy]

That's a very good question. The plan has not been updated since 2007, but action is being implemented under the plan.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Why haven't you updated the plan?

[Louise McEvoy]

That's an oversight.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

An oversight, when we're talking about an obligation? That's not very good. You're telling us that the number of complaints has declined, but don't take that for a guarantee. You only have to read the reports of the Commissioners of Official Languages. For too long, they've shown that you aren't doing your job adequately with regard to the service that must be provided in French on board your aircraft.

What recruitment incentives are you offering in order to hire bilingual people?

[Louise McEvoy]

The incentives are better positions, better flight choices for people who use both official languages. In any case, we don't hire people who aren't bilingual to the extent that's possible. Obviously, as I said earlier, that was very difficult again this year, although we've had a little more success than last year with regard to our positions in the airports. Whatever the case may be, for a bilingual person, compared to a unilingual person, the incentive is to be hired at Air Canada.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

You're telling us that Canadian was 86% or 87% unilingual English, but that goes back some time now. An additional effort has to be made when you are responsible for providing service in French. You have that responsibility under the act, and blaming the other company for the fact that you aren't performing that task shows very considerable weakness, in my opinion, non-compliance with the act and a lack of respect for the citizens of Canada and Quebec.

As to the quality of service in French, I see that the rate is 89% in Montreal. And yet, that's your best score. In Montreal, the result should be 100%. We can understand that it's 70% in Ottawa, 58% in Toronto, 55% in Halifax and 33% in Vancouver, but if it isn't 100% in Montreal, I think that means efforts are inadequate. Furthermore, you don't offer any solutions; you're simply saying there's a lack of federal funding.

There's also a legislative aspect, but if you agree that the federal government has an act, you can show your will by doing what you have to do to respond to people who want service in French. The complaints don't come from anglophones, but rather francophones. So you know where your problem is.

[Louise McEvoy]

May I answer?

Yes, we obviously could do much more if we had the financial assistance we talk about every time, but we're already doing that. That's why some of you are seeing a difference now. We're giving awareness courses to people who aren't bilingual. We're not going to make totally unilingual people bilingual during their careers at Air Canada, unless there's a lot of will on their part. Because we're giving courses to beginners; we're teaching them the language.

However, what we are giving everyone is awareness. All of Vancouver has had its awareness courses, which employees used to attend on a voluntary basis, whereas it's now mandatory.