Official Languages Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the official languages committee.

I would like to welcome our witnesses, Mr. Duncan Dee, Ms. Louise McEvoy, and Joseph Galimberti.

I believe, Mr. Dee, you have a short presentation of approximately ten minutes that you will give to the committee. Subsequent to that, we'll have questions regarding your presentation. You can begin any time you wish.

[Duncan Dee, Senior Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, Air Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. Since our last appearance before this committee two years ago this week, our commitment to offering our customers services in the official language of their choice has not wavered and we have continued to invest considerable resources in those programs which enhance bilingual capacity across Air Canada and its affiliated companies.

When I last appeared before you, several members raised some issues which I'd like to update you on today.

First, Mr. Godin mentioned that signage requiring cup holders to be stored during takeoff and landing in the first row of a number of Air Canada Jazz Dash-8 aircraft were in English only. Immediately following the meeting, Air Canada Jazz conducted an audit of their fleet and identified a handful of aircraft which were formerly operated by Canadian Regional Airlines, which did indeed have unilingual signage. This matter was corrected within two weeks of the audit and the unilingual signs were replaced with bilingual ones.

Another issue was identified by Mr. Sauvageau—someone who, I must say, I will personally miss. Mr. Sauvageau took exception to the lack of comment cards abroad Air Canada flights which allowed customers to provide their feedback on official languages issues. In particular, he felt the cards should be available on the seat pocket of every seat so that any customer who wanted to raise an issue about Air Canada's official language services could do so.

Following the meeting, Air Canada and Jazz ensured that not only were comment cards provided in all seat pockets, both companies also ensured that its in-flight magazine, onRoute, mention its official language services in two sections of the magazine.

I spoke to Mr. Sauvageau several months after the committee appearance when I ran into him in the Centre Bloc and was relieved to learn that he had, in fact, noticed the new cards as well as the onRoute and was pleased with the results. Of course, true to form, Mr. Sauvageau said he would continue to watch us closely.

These are just two very small examples of improvements we have made and continue to make with respect to our official languages obligations, but they show our responsiveness and our commitment.

We certainly listened, and I can assure members that we will continue to do so. We have, throughout our organization, continually respected the obligations imposed on us, and we intend, irrespective of any law, to continue to strive to provide our customers with service in the official language of their choice. We do it on a daily basis without any fanfare as we transport over 30 million customers a year through dozens of airports with very few complaints. No airline in this country, and probably very few others worldwide, provides bilingual service as consistently as Air Canada does.

As it specifically relates to the committee's report, let me simply say that we regret the committee did not provide Air Canada with an opportunity to share our views with you prior to the report being issued. Our perspective no doubt differed from those expressed by the witnesses who appeared. More specifically, contrary to the views expressed by the officials from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, we believe the corporation's restructuring under CCAA and the subsequent creation of ACE Aviation Holdings did not create a legislative void that needed to be filled. The fact is that Parliament had already contemplated the obligations that were to be imposed on any subsidiary of Air Canada, as well as any corporation that offered services on behalf of Air Canada when it passed amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act in 2000.

As it stands, section 10(2) of the Air Canada Public Participation Act already imposes official languages obligations in subsidiaries of Air Canada which provide air services, including Air Canada Jazz. Additionally, the combination of section 10(2) of the Air Canada Public Participation Act and section 25 of the Official Languages Act ensures that, and those subsidiaries and entities who provide 'incidental services', on behalf of Air Canada such as Air Canada Ground Handling Services are also obligated to provide service to customers in both official languages.

As such the Commissioner of Official Languages seeks to fill a void which does not exist and is, instead, seeking to expand the application of the Official Languages Act beyond Parliament's original intent. Regardless of this, however, Air Canada and its subsidiary companies including Jazz have always and will continue to offer services in both official languages because it simply makes good business sense.

That said, I am by no means here today to convince members that we are perfect. 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 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 denied. We only ask that parliamentarians compare us to our peers and not to perfection.

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

In 2003, we were invited to and did apply for language training funds through a Treasury Board program called Fond d'innovation pour le Bureau du commissariat aux langues officielles . We were rejected in writing by Diane Monet of the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada because, although we had the same language obligations as other federal institutions or agencies, Treasury Board considered us not to be a federal institution. We have obligations of a federal institution, but not the funding opportunities.

In 2005, we were again invited to apply for funds from the program I just mentioned. We applied and were again informed in writing that we had been rejected. We were also advised that we should request that these invitations to file applications no longer be sent to us, given that our applications would never be accepted.

If it is indeed the desire of government to achieve a public policy objective by imposing additional official language obligations on a private corporation, in this instance Air Canada and its subsidiaries, then does it not make sense for Parliament to also ensure that a private corporation — Air Canada — has access to the same public financial support to which other federal institutions which were subject to similar obligations have access?

We believe that 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 assistance programs, or it must treat Air Canada like all other airlines which are not subject to the Official Languages Act.

We also believe that Parliament should be aware of the significant challenges language obligations imposed on our operations, specifically as it relates to hiring.

We have continually experienced difficulty identifying and hiring staff outside the province of Quebec, the national capital region, and Moncton. This is not a question of lack of will, but rather the fundamental reality of a lack of sufficient, qualified candidates outside these regions mentioned to fill vacancies. We have requested the assistance of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Treasury Board to help recruit qualified bilingual candidates, particularly in Toronto and western Canada. Unfortunately, these efforts have met with very limited, if any, real success.

To put this dilemma into perspective, in the past five years we have hired bilingual, primarily francophone, flight attendants in Montreal and have transferred them to operating centres like Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver because of a lack of qualified bilingual candidates in those cities. In total, over 575 flight attendants have been transferred. This is despite concentrated recruitment efforts undertaken by Air Canada throughout major urban centres across Canada to find candidates with acceptable language capability.

The reality is not mitigated by the Official Languages Act, which imposes official language obligations only in regions where numbers warrant. Simply put, the obligations with which Air Canada is required to comply don't change the reality of our industry. A flight attendant on any given day can start their day on a flight where language obligations would not apply because of this provision and then spend the rest of the day working on routes that have demand for bilingual service. As a result, we have been forced to take the position that all of our routes, without exception, must have bilingual capabilities, regardless of the “where numbers warrant” provision. This actually serves to make our own application of the Official Languages Act more rigorous than other federal institutions.

In closing, allow me to restate our commitment as a corporation to meeting any language obligations Parliament chooses to impose. Although we are far from perfect, we do take our obligations seriously and correct inefficiencies whenever they are identified. We will continue serving, and improve our ability to serve, our customers in the official language of their choice regardless of the legislative obligations imposed upon us. For us, serving our customers in the official language of their choice is simply a good business decision.

Thank you for your time today, we are now willing to take any questions you might ask.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dee.

Thank you for your kind words about Mr. Sauvageau, who is greatly missed both by this committee and by Parliament as a whole.

We will start the first round of questions with Mr. D'Amours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dee, and thank you to your colleagues who are here with you this morning.

Mr. Dee, I would like to go back to some of your comments, as well as some of the comments that I made when Air Canada appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages during the 38th Parliament.

Firstly, I hear what you are saying about the comment cards. I assume that you followed up on our suggestions and asked your employees to ensure that comment cards were put in all seat pockets. However, while this might have been done in the period following your appearance before the Standing Committee on Official Languages, it does not appear to be practised today.

Over the past six months, I have taken a good number of Air Canada flights and, each time, I have checked to see if the comment cards were available. Each and every time, whether it was Air Canada Jazz or whether it was Air Canada, the card was nowhere to be found. I am bringing this up because I made sure that I checked each time. Perhaps you are going to try to tell me that this was just a coincidence, or that my assigned seat was reserved for the exclusive use of unilingual passengers. Regardless, I can assure you that this has happened each time that I have flown Air Canada or Air Canada Jazz over the past six months, around a dozen times in total.

I represent a riding in Northern New Brunswick. We will not get into services available in my region, because there are none. Let us take then, by way of example, a flight from Quebec City to Montreal. I would like to know why the flight attendants do not give their safety briefings, etc., in French first. I am talking about a flight from one city in Quebec to another. This is something that I have just witnessed once.

Does Air Canada have a policy on this matter? Do you have a policy stipulating that, in French-speaking cities, announcements should be made first in French, and in English-speaking cities, they should be made first in English? I would ask that you address this later, when you have the opportunity to reply.

You argue that the government should make a choice and either subject everybody to the same rules or treat Air Canada like any other carrier.

If I remember correctly, Mr. Dee — and this is what I said during the 38th Parliament —, when Canadian International and Air Canada merged, one of the conditions was that Air Canada was to ensure that existing rules on the provision of services in both official languages continued to be respected. Those were the original terms of the acquisition agreement with Canadian International.

Today you are telling us that all carriers ought to be subject to the same rules, but the rules agreed upon in the Canadian International acquisition agreement stipulate that Air Canada must continue to provide bilingual service on board its aircraft. I am not saying that all carriers should be subject to the same requirements — that is another debate, and one that I am sure we will have in the near future. But, regardless, this was a clearly defined condition of the agreement that Air Canada signed. If it has been a condition in the past, why would it no longer be a condition today? Why is Air Canada asking for access to public monies when it has already made a commitment under the agreement?

[Duncan Dee]

I will start with your third question.

There was more than one condition involved at that time. The first was to provide service in both official languages, an obligation we have never disputed. Another condition, which we found contradictory, was that we had to keep all Canadian Airlines employees, almost 90 % of whom were unilingual anglophones.

The fact that the government of the day required that we provide our services in both official languages while also keeping Canadian Airlines unilingual anglophone staff was, to our mind, a contradiction. It was impossible for us to provide services in both official languages plus ensuring that no unilingual labour force lost their jobs.

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

I understand your point, Mr. Dee. You feel that the conditions are contradictory, and I respect your opinion, but I would like you to tell me, yes or no, whether Air Canada signed the agreement accepting the various conditions.

[Duncan Dee]

We had no choice but to accept the conditions. You may recall that at that time American Airlines and Air Canada were wrangling over the future of our company. The Minister of Transport of the day said that if we wanted to continue with Air Canada, rather than American Airlines...

[Jean-Claude D'Amours]

Did the Minister of Transport force you to buy Canadian Airlines?

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

I am sorry, Mr. Dee, but the five minutes are up.

I am now going to give the floor to Ms. Barbot for the next question.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Good morning, and thank you for having come to meet with the committee.

You said that you will respect the terms of the Official Languages Act for both languages. Clearly, however, when we speak about respecting an official language, we are always referring to French. There is no problem when it comes to respecting English.

French-speaking Canadians often have no choice but to fly Air Canada as it is the only carrier serving their region. Yet these passengers are not served in French, they do not understand the flight attendants, etc. You said that it is first and foremost a question of good business sense. I would imagine that it is a priority for you to be understood by your clients when you are serving them. However, I can assure you that each and everyone of us has recently had at least one experience of the Official Languages Act not being met, which was not being able to receive service in French. As a business, you ought to be committed to serving Francophones in their language, but this is unfortunately not the case.

Furthermore, you said that a bill, which intends to remedy certain issues, is being studied. Although it does not address all of the problems, it will allow passengers to receive more services. However, in your presentation, you said that section 10 of the current act already covers all of this.

Could you explain this to me?

[Duncan Dee]

The Air Canada Public Participation Act already imposes official languages obligations on Air Canada, all of its subsidiaries, and all entities that represent it publicly.

For example, Air Canada Jazz is an Air Canada subsidiary operating at the regional level. Section 10(2) of the Air Canada Public Participation Act already requires that Air Canada Jazz provide service in both official languages. As for Air Canada ground-handling services, which serves the public on behalf of Air Canada, it is subject to section 25 of the Official Languages Act. This means therefore that all Air Canada Jazz and Air Canada ground-handling services are already covered.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

That is not what we have heard. At any rate, even if these companies are covered by existing legislative provisions on official languages, they do not adhere to them. I do not know what we can do about that. I am going to move on to another subject.

You are asking for government funding for the services you provide in French. However, everybody agrees that Air Canada is a private company. Nevertheless, you argue that:

If it is indeed the desire of the government to achieve a public policy objective by imposing additional official language obligations on a private corporation, Air Canada [...]

I am struggling to understand what you mean by that. Canada is officially a bilingual country. These obligations are not unique to Air Canada.

[Duncan Dee]

Yes, Canada is a bilingual country, but no other carrier is subject to the same obligations as Air Canada. These are obligations specific to Air Canada.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

As we said earlier, Air Canada is considered to be a pan-Canadian carrier, and as such, has certain prerogatives. When Air Canada's status changed, it was understood that the company would have to obey those rules.

[Duncan Dee]

Our position is as follows: if we are considered to be a federal institution, why can we not be considered as a fully-fledged federal institution? It was the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, not us, that came up with the idea. It recommended that we receive government support to help integrate Canadian Airlines employees.

If we are to be subject to obligations over and above rules to which other private carriers are subject, we have to be able to make funding requests in the same way that all other federal institutions subject to the Official Languages Act can.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

As has already been said, these are conditions that you accepted when you signed the agreement. To my mind, it is unacceptable not to provide service in both official languages and to say that you will only respect the conditions of the agreement if you receive government funding.

[Duncan Dee]

I am not saying that we do not want to remedy problems, or that we are not going to do so. You brought to our attention situations where we failed to serve you in both official languages. That is the problem for us to rectify ourselves. We are not asking the government to do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Ms. Barbot.

Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to extend a warm welcome to Mr. Dee and his colleagues.

You said that Air Canada should be treated like a federal institution, and I fully agree. I would be in full support of the government buying back and nationalizing Air Canada. I have never supported privatization, and did not agree with the government decision to sell CN. You cannot even travel across Canada by train anymore. The rail tracks have all been dismantled.

When Air Canada was privatized, it accepted the conditions related to bilingualism. Yet now, all these years later, you come to tell us that you are struggling to get by and ought to be treated like the others. But the private sector accepted the fact that Air Canada had obligations. The Canadian government said that it would sell Air Canada provided that certain specific conditions were respected.

That being said, in light of what it costs to provide training, I agree with you that the government ought to provide assistance. Allow me to explain why — it does not specifically relate to Air Canada. Phase II of the Employment Insurance Act provides a special skills training program. This program has a $50 billion dollar surplus. Training people does not only entail showing them how to use equipment and machinery. The fund can be used as readily for language training as for helping people to find jobs.

Allow me to give you an example. A few years ago, a company called Noranda received $2 million through Phase II of the Employment Insurance Act to avoid layoffs.

You are right to say that this idea came from one of our reports. I was a member of the committee when that recommendation was made. If I am not mistaken, I was the one who suggested that the government provide assistance. In the case of Air Canada, the responsibility does not lie fully with the government, as the conditions of the agreement were clear. Nonetheless, I have a responsibility to set the record straight and recognize that the government can provide financial assistance to a private company for training and skills development. It is done through Phase II of the Employment Insurance Act.

However, I have my reservations when I hear, as was often said, that Air Canada was forced to keep its unilingual anglophone staff because of the collective agreement. That is incorrect. In my time as a union representative, I was never able to negotiate a collective agreement that conflicted with the law. Labour law always takes precedence over collective agreements.

I would like to know whether you are comfortable with the new bill or whether certain provisions are of concern to you.

[Duncan Dee]

Phase II of the Unemployment Insurance Act was the route we studied and decided upon when we were seeking public funding to help with our training costs. We had discussions with the Department on this matter. Unfortunately, at that time, we were told that training unilingual employees did not meet phase II criteria.

As for the current bill, it only imposes obligations to which we are already subject. It is not for Air Canada to tell Parliament what to do. It is up to Parliament to decide wether it wishes to adopt this bill. Our position does not conflict with the tenets of the Official Languages Act.

I would like to give an example of what Air Canada has done to improve its level of bilingualism. Ms.Barbot said earlier that we have not done all what is necessary to respect our obligations. Nevertheless, we have undertaken considerable efforts.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

It is overwhelming to see that you are making an effort and trying to respect the conditions, etc., but at the end of the day, the Act is not being respected. A bilingual service is either provided or it is not.

When I fly from Montreal to Ottawa, I find it difficult to accept that I am not served in my language, even although a failure to do so contravene the Act. I also have difficulties in accepting that Air Canada, which is used to service the Atlantic region, has been replaced by Jazz, and that as a result, rules governing language of work, an equal participation of Francophones and Anglophones, community developments, and linguistic duality are not being respected. Air Canada no longer operates in the Atlantic region; Jazz is now our service provider.

You have essentially used the back door to do what you could have not done under the Air Canada banner. At least that is the way we see it.

[Duncan Dee]

You said that Air Canada has been replaced by Jazz in the Atlantic region. Yet 83 % of Jazz's fly attendants in Eastern Canada, from Ontario that is, are bilingual. They have been examined for...

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

You are out of time.

It is Mr. Lemieux turn.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you for having come to meet the committee and for having made your presentation.

The government has responded in principle to the recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages. One of the differences relates to the desire to give the government greater flexibility so that we do not need to go through a lengthy legislative process every time Air Canada restructures. You spoke about the challenges Air Canada faces. I understand what you are trying to say, particularly regarding staffing.

Without necessarily providing us with confidential information on your future plans, could you explain the relationship between the various Air Canada subsidiaries? I would also like to hear your view on how we should decide wether they should be subject to the Official Languages Act.

[Duncan Dee]

We have just concluded another restructuring, which follows up on the restructuring that took place two years ago. Air Canada is now again responsible for Air Canada Ground Handling Services, which were previously the responsibility of another ACE Aviation subsidiary, that is, a company equivalent to that of Air Canada. We retrieved the ground-handling services, which are now once again a direct subsidiary of Air Canada. Ground-handling services are now once again the responsibility of Air Canada. We also retrieved the subsidiary responsible for Air Canada's air freight, Air Canada Cargo, and we gave it back to Air Canada.

Approximately one week ago, we separated the two companies that were Air Canada's affiliates, and not subsidiaries. The transaction will be completed this Friday. Air Canada Jazz was previously an Air Canada subsidiary, but it has been split off. As you may know, a year ago we launched a public share offering for Air Canada Jazz which is now a separate company from Air Canada.

That is how we reorganized Air Canada's various entities.