Official Languages Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

I would like to extend a welcome to all our members, all our committee members and our guests. It is a pleasure to have Mr. Graham Fraser and his assistants with us here this morning.

I would invite you to begin your presentation, Mr. Fraser, and then we will go to questions; you will have approximately 10 minutes at your disposal. We would like to conclude at approximately 10:30.

[Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

I apologize. Mr. Godin, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the last meeting, I had asked for some clarification about the report to be submitted to the House of Commons. It's as though we were now studying the minister's report, when in fact he did not respond by submitting a report but rather by tabling a bill. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

No, there was a written response.

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

I would like to get a clear idea about where we are heading. I asked if there had been a report, because it is as if there were no report from the minister. We are in the process of studying a report that does not exist. We are, in fact, reviewing a bill. In addition, we are inviting witnesses without telling them why they are coming here. I would like some clarification, please. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Godin, the analyst has just told me that there is a written report.

Let us beginning by hearing from Mr. Fraser, and then we can discuss the matter afterward.

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

We will work on the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

I apologize, Mr. Fraser. Please begin.

[Graham Fraser]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I am pleased to stand before you for the first time as Commissioner of Official Languages.

Thank you for the opportunity to come speak to you about Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

The Air Canada situation generated a great deal of interest among many Canadians, including my predecessors, and more specifically, Ms. Adam. During the review of Bill C-47, Ms. Adam raised concerns about the effects that Air Canada's latest restructuring would have on the language rights of the travelling public and of the airline's employees. As you know, that bill died on the Order Paper.

Today, the new Bill C-29 is the issue at hand. I am pleased to see that Bill C-29 restates the context of Bill C-47 and improves on certain elements, taking into account many of the recommendations made by your committee and by Commissioner Adam.

However, I am worried about how it will affect the linguistic rights of the travelling public and the right of employees of Air Canada to work in their language within the new entities of the Air Canada family. Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon told you that this bill would require Air Canada's former internal divisions, which fall under federal jurisdiction, to once again comply with the official languages obligations to which they were subject prior to restructuring.

Despite this clarification, I am concerned because I wonder whether or not the travelling public and Air Canada employees will truly continue to enjoy the same rights that they had before the company restructured.

As you know, Air Canada has undergone major changes since privatizing in 1988. Also, it acquired the Canadian Airlines Corporation and undertook a vast restructuring of that company. The government then amended the Air Canada Public Participation Act to clarify Air Canada's obligations with respect to the travelling public.

In the fall of 2004, the company underwent another restructuring. New corporate entities, such as Air Canada Ground Handling Services, Air Canada Technical Services, Air Canada Cargo, and Air Canada Online were created. These entities were not subject to the Air Canada Public Participation Act or the Official Languages Act. Bill C-47 was tabled in 2005 to fill this regulatory gap.

During the review of Bill C-47, Commissioner Adam went before the Standing Committee on Transport to draw attention to the importance of protecting the right of Canadians to be served in both official languages by Air Canada and its new entities. Her main concern was the remaining uncertainty about the application of the Official Languages Act to Air Canada's former divisions, which were not clearly named in the bill.

We are now reviewing Bill C-29, which attempts to clear up the ambiguity of Bill C-47. To some extent, the government has followed my predecessor's recommendation.

Bill C-29 does not explicitly state which entities would be subject to the Official Languages Act, with the exception of Jazz; however, it gives the governor in council the authority to designate, by regulation, the entities that will be subject to the Official Languages Act. This will allow a great deal of flexibility.

However, we have no guarantee that such a regulation would be passed with the coming into force of the new act, since Bill C-29 does not specify a timeline in that regard. This shortcoming needs to be addressed because without a regulation, the ambiguity regarding the application of the Official Languages Act to the new ACE entities would remain unresolved.

In my view, the Air Canada group entities that should be designated by regulation pursuant to proposed new subsection 10.2(2), based on Air Canada's current structure, are Ground Handling Services, Technical Services, Cargo, and Air Canada Online.

At his appearance on November 2, 2006, Minister Lawrence Cannon stated that in his opinion Air Canada Online did not fall within the legislative authority of Parliament. I do not share that view. Air Canada Online essentially sells tickets to travellers wishing to use the services of Air Canada or Jazz. Like Ground Handling Services' activities, which consist of registering passengers and their luggage, ticket vending is essential to the operations of both air carriers. For that reason, I believe that Air Canada Online falls within the legislative authority of Parliament with regard to aeronautics and must be designated in the regulations as an entity subject to the Official Languages Act.

To emphasize the effect of Bill C-29, I refer you to the table enclosed with my speech. We used an organizational chart developed by Air Canada as part of its restructuring in 2004 and included the possible effects of the bill. The colour coding indicates the entities that are clearly subject to the Official Languages Act, or parts of it, and those that could be.

With respect to Jazz, the bill clearly states that the company will only be subject to part IV of the Official Languages Act. It will, therefore, be required to uphold the linguistic rights of the travelling public.

The fact that Jazz has no linguistic obligations to its employees is also of concern to me.

The restructuring of Air Canada has considerably changed the airline landscape. From now on, Jazz will service a growing number of routes that used to be operated by Air Canada, which has closed points of service in many cities, such as Moncton, Fredericton, Saint John and Quebec. A substantial number of Air Canada employees now work for Jazz, which enables the company to offer the new routes. It is important to point out that the linguistic rights of Jazz employees are no longer protected.

Indeed, Bill C-29 does not impose any obligations on Jazz with regard to language of work. This aspect of Bill C-29 must be reviewed carefully. You will recall that the aim of the bill is to maintain the linguistic rights of Air Canada employees. That goal is met in part by the fact that the Ground Handling Services, Technical Services and Cargo will be subject to the Official Languages Act in its entirety. Bill C-29 should not allow Air Canada to sidestep its linguistic obligations to employees by permitting Jazz to operate an increasing number of its routes.

One way to remedy the problem would be to subject Jazz to Part IV and V of the Official Languages Act.

I'd like to make a final point in closing. During his appearance three weeks ago, Minister Cannon made reference to a low number of complaints against Air Canada. I believe that the rights of travellers are very important and should not be minimized by figures. The number of complaints lodged creates a false impression that things are obviously improving. It may simply be that Canadians, after many failed attempts, are not making as many formal complaints as before.

However, the number of complaints filed cannot be used to justify non-compliance with the law. Francophones across the country are entitled to respect when they conduct business with Air Canada, its subsidiaries, and its entities. A restructuring, even a major one, should not deprive the public and employees of their rights.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am now prepared to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser, and thank you also for being brief.

We will begin our first seven-minute round with Mr. D'Amours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fraser, thank you for coming here.

We are pleased to welcome you here once again, but today we do so in a more official manner.

I would also like to thank you for your comments. My comments will focus on two aspects of the Air Canada situation. These are matters that I raised with Minister Cannon when he appeared before us. I am sure that you have read the comments made on that day.

Mr. Commissioner, I told the minister that it appeared contradictory, in my view, to come forward with legislation, which is nonetheless necessary, when in fact the government advertising appearing in the October 2006 edition of enRoute, Air Canada's in-flight magazine, is not bilingual.

Everything that Air Canada publishes within this magazine is bilingual, and here I refer to the articles and everything else. It is incredible. This publication demonstrates tremendous respect for linguistic duality. But on page 87, much to our great surprise, the Government of Canada has some unilingual English advertising in the same magazine. This is contradictory. I would like to hear your comments on the matter.

It is somewhat of a contradiction to tell Air Canada that the government will be implementing certain mechanisms to ensure that the company provides French services to francophones, and then the francophone traveller who flips through the enRoute magazine finds government advertising where the only bilingual aspect is the wording Gouvernement du Canada, printed beside Government of Canada.

I would like to hear your views on the matter. I have a second question that I would like to ask you later.

[Graham Fraser]

Was it "The New Government of Canada"?

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours:

No, it was not "The New Government of Canada".

[Graham Fraser]

I think that it is essential that the federal government respect not only the letter but also the spirit of the Official Languages Act. We have, in fact, dealt with complaints about advertising in publications, where the government did not run the same ad in the minority language.

It is also important that government advertising be bilingual in publications that are aimed at all Canadians. It should be pointed out that the enRoute magazine makes a tremendous effort to ensure that all of its texts are meticulously translated.

I think that its editorial production is a model of linguistic duality and I feel it is unfortunate that the federal government does not follow the example set by this publication.

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

Thank you. I'm really pleased to hear your comments. In my opinion, it was extremely ironic to see that the magazine was published the very month where we began reviewing a bill about Air Canada and official languages. It was quite ironic. The government is delivering a very confusing message. On the one hand, it is trying to deliver a certain message and, on the other hand, it doesn't apply its own guidelines.

Essentially, I'm wondering what the government is trying to say. It could be: "Do as we say but not as we do". With this government, this is a real problem in the country.

That being said, I would like to focus on Air Canada's online services, another matter that I raised. I am pleased to hear that you do not share the minister's view. I do not share his view either, and perhaps he needs to gain greater insight into the reality that exists in certain regions of the country.

I come from northern New Brunswick, where there are airports but they are not served by Air Canada. Some of these airports are served by Air Canada Jazz. If I need to travel, there is service in Bathurst, and, further away, in Moncton.

If I am a unilingual francophone and I cannot read, write, or understand English and I'm leaving from the International Airport of Greater Moncton, I have to purchase my ticket in advance. With the changes made to the reservation service, this is not so easy anymore. We used to be able to purchase tickets through travel agencies. By implementing certain changes, Air Canada encouraged its clients to purchase their tickets online rather than go through an agency.

Online services are all well and good; however, if one day this becomes the only way for someone in my neck of the woods to purchase a ticket, and this person is not able to understand or read English, we have a serious problem.

[Graham Fraser]

I would add the following to your comment: increasingly, we have to pay a premium if we want to deal with a human being in order to purchase a ticket.

Sometimes, if we are experiencing computer or access problems, we decide that, instead of waiting and trying to find another way to have access to the service, we will pay a premium of $25 or $35, because we're in a hurry, in order to be able to deal with a human being.

If the online service is not compelled to provide service to the public in both official languages, we will wind up in a situation where the citizen will have to pay a premium to ensure that language rights are respected. I feel that this goes against the very spirit and letter of the Official Languages Act.

From month to month, and certainly from year to year, online services are becoming more important not only for the consumer but also for the citizen. It is becoming "artificial", to a certain extent, to separate the company's obligations from the service through which the citizen or consumer could deal directly with a clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

I would ask Ms. Barbot to ask the second question.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, and thank you for coming here.

This is the first opportunity I've had to welcome you in your capacity as the Commissioner of Official Languages. This is no doubt the first of many meetings of this nature.

Your presentation has the advantage of being very clear and it really answers the questions that we have been asking ourselves regarding the real impact of this legislation, if it is adopted as it is drafted.

We talk about the fact that the francophone client should be served in French wherever he goes. Unfortunately, there are so many holes in the system that this is not happening. He can't buy his tickets in French if he lives in a province where there are few francophones. In my opinion, we have to go back to the meaning of the act.

Given the difficulty in accepting this particularity, do you not think that it's about time that we had legislation that all air carriers were subject to with respect to official languages? Given how important this aspect is for Canadians and francophones—the ability to travel has become essential—would this not be one way to deal with this?

Air Canada told our committee that bilingualism is too expensive, that it is prepared to do what is necessary, but that the competition is much too strong and that it can't make ends meet. Basically, this is one of the reasons they give us for these shortcomings.

Since we are drafting a bill to protect francophones and ensure that they are provided with adequate services, would this not be the time to make this apply to the entire industry?

[Graham Fraser]

It must be said that there are very specific reasons for the obligations imposed on Air Canada. This was a national airline company created by the government with taxpayers' money.

So, on the one hand, we have a national symbol, with all that that entails. On the other hand, we have an airline industry that is becoming increasingly more diversified. Moreover, I do not think that we can impose all of these obligations regarding the right to work in French on an airline company based in Calgary, for example.

In my opinion, imposing each and every aspect of this legislation on all carriers would have a significant impact going well beyond the intent to protect the rights of the travelling public and Air Canada employees.

I do have some concerns with respect to the transactions and transfers of employees from Air Canada to Air Canada Jazz. These are employees, in Montreal, Moncton and in Saint John, who work in francophone communities. Consequently, I don't see how I could say to other companies, which have other traditions with respect to their workers...

I think that we have to deal with the reality of the company and the rights of its workers.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

They clearly told us that they had agreed to these conditions, which had been imposed on them when the contract was signed, but that this was a heavy burden for them and that they were not competitive.

This is why we were wondering what we could do to ensure that there is some type of fairness. Nevertheless, I do understand what you are saying at present.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Good morning, Mr. Fraser, and good morning to everyone.

I too noted how your former career as a journalist has enabled you to be brief and precise. This is most appreciated, because being brief is very difficult.

[Graham Fraser]

I have very good people around me and I am well supported.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

No doubt.

I'll tell you what bothers me a little bit. We met people from Air Canada and we note that, in the name of profitability, everything seems to be getting smaller in the planes, even leg space. I bless my parents for making me small. The food portions are getting smaller, and if we want to drink something, we have to pay. All of the money is being used to purchase gas for the planes, and there certainly isn't very much left over for anything else.

We are also noticing that the space for French is shrinking, unfortunately. This is worrisome to us. We were told that the mergers and the acquisition of Canadian Airlines by Air Canada had made it difficult to hire bilingual employees, that as a result people had to be transferred from one region to the other, which was not something that people wanted. Moreover, we were told not to ask for so much French, because this would result in poor people losing their jobs. In actual fact, we were not told this, but that is what I was able to deduce from this.

I wonder what you think about this. Are these difficulties truly real? These people also told us that, as a result of the numerous difficulties they had to ask for government subsidies for assistance. That surprised me somewhat.

[Graham Fraser]

Even before I held my current position, I was always a client of Air Canada. I was sometimes surprised by the quality of service in both languages. Other clients have had unfortunate experiences. I think that many Air Canada employees make significant efforts.

As regards the grants, this is more of an issue for the Standing Committee on Transport. Nevertheless, one thing is important: because of the very nature of the act and because of the government's limited authority, we are forced to adopt a regulatory approach and the commissioner has to play the role of ombudsman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

I apologize, Mr. Fraser, but the seven minutes are up.