Official Languages Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2006

[Le président, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Dussault and Mr. Lemieux.

Mr. Simard.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I wish to welcome the commissioner and the members of his team.

First of all, if I've understood correctly, employees will be allowed to choose the language of work that suits them. Back home in Manitoba, when we established the first bilingual service centres, if we hadn't insisted on French as a language of work, English would have superceded French. That's normal: that's what happens in 90% of cases.

You also said earlier that Air Canada Jazz had no linguistic obligations. As a general rule, that company serves small communities. Indeed, Air Canada itself covers Montreal, Toronto and the major centres. In places like Moncton, Winnipeg and Northern Ontario, which are served by Air Canada Jazz, francophones represent 4% and in some case of the population. These people already face major challenges in obtaining French services. It's therefore very ironic that there is no obligation imposed on Air Canada Jazz when it comes to language; it should be the reverse.

In any case, if you have time, I'd like you to tell me what you think of this notion that other airlines should be subjected to the Official Languages Act.

Thank you.

[Graham Fraser]

You raised a very good point regarding the language of work, especially in technological areas. That's always a challenge. In my opinion, it's particularly important that these employees don't lose the right to work in French in workshops or other Air Canada work places which, because of restructuring, belong to Jazz. It's important that that right be underscored and maintained.

You are indeed right. According to my understanding of the restructuring, Air Canada serves the major national and international routes, and Jazz is the link between more isolated places or communities that have more difficulty, as you said. I believe that the company has an important role to play in those communities.

With regard to other airlines, I've answered in part by telling Ms. Barbot that in some places in Canada, there was no opportunity to work in French, even within the federal government.

For example, if we were to impose all the provisions of the Official Languages Act on a company based in Calgary, that would mean that company would have significant recruitment problems. I don't think we should necessarily take for granted that by imposing rules in situations where there's no natural link with an existing community, we will necessarily contribute to respect for both official languages.

In my opinion, if we don't take into account the fact that there are unilingual communities in this country, we run the risk of having more problems than solutions.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Fraser, it seems to me that those are exactly the places where a rule should be imposed. For example, in French Manitoba, there are people who are prepared to work in both official languages. It's said that people in the west are the most bilingual in the country.

It seems to me that Air Canada should make an effort to train and hire people in those places and that it should insist that these people work in both official languages.

[Graham Fraser]

You're talking about Air Canada.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Yes, I am talking about Air Canada, or rather Jazz.

[Graham Fraser]

The third question dealt with imposing the Official Languages Act on other companies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

I'm sorry, gentlemen.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

It's already finished?

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Yes, your time has expired. I'm sorry.

Ms. Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Good morning, Mr. Fraser. It's always an honour to meet with you. It's always very interesting to speak with you because everyone around this table shares the same vision. It's important to keep the francophonie alive.

As you know, our government has made a firm commitment regarding official languages, and, in my opinion, the more we work together positively, the more this committee will distinguish itself from others.

Ms. Verner works in very close cooperation with other ministers so that all the departments are bilingual. We have a long way to go, and this is a difficult task for everyone. I think that we've all had minor disappointments when we arrived here. However, I hope that by working together, we can improve things. In fact, I'm convinced of that.

You talked about the committee report and the government's response regarding the decision to specify ACE divisions in the act. When Minister Cannon presented the government's response to the committee, he mentioned that this difference had been discussed at the Office of the Commissioner. I'd like to know more about those discussions.

[Graham Fraser]

First of all, allow me to say that I was impressed when Minister Cannon announced the bill and stated that his government felt that linguistic duality was one of the foundations of Canadian society. I was reassured and impressed by the clarity of that statement, and I wanted to point that out before this committee.

With regard to the discussions you mentioned, they took place before I took office. Perhaps my colleagues could comment.

[Johane Tremblay]

Indeed, we were consulted by staff from the Department of Transport, which was following up on the proposals for changes that the commissioner had indicated when she appeared in November 2005.

There were therefore discussions on these proposals for changes that had been made, in order to gain a better understanding of the reason behind them.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

All right.

As you know, I must admit that not only the Conservatives but also the Liberals always wanted Air Canada to reflect linguistic duality, in Canada's image.

What do you think of the idea of giving the government more flexibility regarding ACE and the response regarding the legislation? There was mention of flexibility for ACE divisions that should be subject to the Official Languages Act. It was felt preferable to give the government more flexibility. What do you think of that?

[Graham Fraser]

I will give you an off-the-cuff response, then ask Ms. Tremblay to comment.

In principle, the notion of flexibility in a regulation might appear useful, but I fear that flexibility might be the equivalent of letting things slip by. We must always find the balance between openness and flexibility on one hand, and excessively stringent and bureaucratic regulation on the other hand. That balance has to be maintained at all times.

That is my off-the-cuff response. I will ask Ms. Tremblay to be more specific in terms of this bill.

[Johane Tremblay]

Commissioner Adam recommended that the former divisions be named in the bill, so that there would no ambiguity in applying the Official Languages Act to those divisions.

Bill C-29 has taken a more flexible approach, giving the Governor in Council the power to enact a regulation. That is, in fact, a good approach. Given that changes might still be brought as part of the restructuring process, those changes would be better made through regulations. It is easier to amend a regulation than it is to amend a bill. Flexibility is certainly an advantage from that standpoint.

However, as the commissioner noted in his remarks, the important thing is to pass the regulations. Otherwise, we end up with the same ambiguity when it comes to applying the Official Languages Act to those former divisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Ms. Tremblay. I will stop you there.

The next question will be put by Ms. Brunelle.

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

With respect to the regulations, the Official Languages Commissioner had been asking for a review of the regulations associated with certain articles governing Air Canada's services to the public for two years now.

Would you support a review of provisions in the Official Languages Regulations?

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, because amending the Official Languages Act has an impact on the regulations. We are painstakingly working on sound proposals to review the regulations.

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

In one of your reports, will you be tabling suggestions on how the regulations could be reviewed.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, we are working on it.

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

Mr. Chairman, do I have any time left? Yes?

One of our colleagues asked a question about the evaluation of linguistic services conducted by employees. I would like to know how that works. Do people get some sort of sheet telling them what they should be evaluating? If so, I would like to see those sheets so that I can do an evaluation myself. Members would be able to see what you're looking for, and that would help guide their comments and our work. You would then be able to take advantage of our experience.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, we have sheets that employees fill out after a trip. I don't know who is responsible for the training.

[Renald Dussault]

Obviously, it is an internal exercise. It is something we use to guide us in our discussions with Air Canada. As the commissioner explained, we have a wide range of tools to try to improve the situation of Air Canada. This is not an official form to be completed in 53 copies, but a tool we use in-house to seek other kinds of information.

Air Canada is applying its own efforts in that direction, but we have set up this tool to try to collect the kind of information that lets us tell Air Canada, say, that there might have been fewer complaints during the restructuring period, but the number of complaints might simply have dropped because people did not know whether they could submit complaints. This is to offset, in a way, the systematic observations that seem to show quality of service has dropped somewhat. It allows us to show Air Canada that the smaller number of complaints is not in itself a sign that quality has improved, but that it may be due to other reasons.

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

What you are saying brings to mind the Office de la langue française du Québec, where action tends to be based on complaints, such as complaints on signage. It is true that the number of complaints tends to drop, but that does not mean there are no problems. It's just that people get tired of filing complaints because you have to fill out forms, submit the complaint, and so on. Often, people don't want to complain because they don't want to annoy anyone, even though they know their complaint with be kept confidential. There are limits to complaint-driven systems. Even though you said in your presentation that the number of complaints has dropped, that does not mean there are fewer problems.