Official Languages Committee on June 10th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We will now hear from the Vice-Chair, Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to say two things. I am under the annoying impression that what we are seeing here is an attempt to prevent the committee from presenting the report on immigration, after working on it for two or two and a half months. This is very annoying.

This second comment does not apply to you, Ms. Wong, and it does not apply to Mr. Murphy or Monsieur Bellavance.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, how proud the students of Samuel-Genest will be of us this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

We will now continue with Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to first state that what was said by Monsieur Godin is absolutely false, entirely false.

The immigration report that we are in the process of doing was something that I suggested. I find that the report is of extreme value, which is why I initially suggested it, because it will help many of our minority communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Nadeau?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair. I do not have the procedure book with me, but I am not sure that we are talking about the amendment at present.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Indeed, Mr. Nadeau, your intervention is relevant, and perhaps I should have also brought this to the attention of the committee members who have already spoken.

Ms. Glover, I would invite you to discuss the amendment to the motion, which pertains to positive comments.

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

On both positive and negative comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Exactly.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Chair, the reason I am taking a moment--and it's a brief moment--to respond to what Mr. Godin said is, first of all, because what he said during what he called a “point of order” was not a point of order, but he was allowed to speak for several minutes about how he felt this committee meeting was going. I think it is my right to at least respond to something he initiated. I did not take up the time of the committee by making a point of order to address his comments, which he made under a point of order, but I do believe it is my right, when I speak, to respond to some allegations that are false and allegations that are completely partisan, in my opinion, while I also address the amendments. I think it's important that we make sure we do not provide false information, particularly to those children who hopefully are watching today. They want us to be honest, they want us to have integrity, and I intend to live up to that obligation for those children and for all of the other people who might be watching today.

With regard to the immigration report, we want to extend the immigration report. We want to study it further. We want to be inclusive. It is the opposition that wants to shut it down by doing a report when the actual study has not been completed.

So let's make this clear. The government would like to continue with this invaluable study on immigration in our francophone and anglophone minority communities because we care about their survival.

Going back to the amendment, the amendment put forward by my colleague, Sylvie Boucher, is a very good amendment. I am going to support the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I apologize, Ms. Glover.

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

I would like to raise a point of order, Mr. Chair. I think that our colleague is disclosing things that occurred in camera. She is talking about the motion that she tabled.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

No.

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

No, she is talking about mine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I will nevertheless consider your point of order, because we have new members on the committee. I will accept Mr. Godin's point of order, simply and basically to point out that anything that pertains to the report per se—the report was distributed to members—and the recommendations, is confidential. Of course, the meetings that were held and the exchanges we had with respect to immigration are public, but the report as such and the recommendations are confidential.

I will therefore accept your point of order. For your information, it is important to remind members that, when you speak, you must avoid referring to conversations that took place in camera, which does not appear to be the case at present, but I do believe that the member's point is relevant.

Bearing this in mind, I will give the floor back to you, Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, I believe this to be a fair and just amendment. I too have some significant concerns about the committee or any government or parliamentarian dictating to a private entity exactly what will be on something that is distributed to their customers. If we are to follow in the spirit that we are trying to help the situation, and that we are trying to make ameliorations that will help all our francophone and anglophone citizens, then it is imperative that we put forward motions that pertain to being inclusive and make sure we do not take a position.

In this case, I believe Madame Boucher's amendment to the motion allows us to make a suggestion, and I appreciate that Monsieur D'Amours' motion is to invite Air Canada to do this, but we should do it in such a manner that they have the right to be concerned about not offending their customers and not trying to push onto their customer base any kind of negative opinion or suggestion.

I too have had a number of very good experiences with Air Canada, en français, in English. I have been very satisfied with many of the trips I've taken. I would like to see Air Canada provide the opportunity for customers to make comments, both good and bad.

I believe the motion put forward by Madame Boucher is going to allow people like me to make our comments without feeling as if we are somehow going against what the comment card is for. If we suggest that it's only a comment card for complaints, how is someone to make a positive acknowledgement on a complaint card? I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that. It would seem completely contrary to what the card is for. I think we ought to be very careful to be inclusive and that we do not propose something that would leave out part of the population, part of Air Canada's customer base, and that is in effect what the original motion would do.

Madame Boucher has put forward an amendment that allows everyone to participate in providing comments to Air Canada with regard to their experiences. I thank Monsieur D'Amours for making a suggestion, but I particularly prefer the amendment that has been put forward by Madame Boucher.

I, frankly, cannot understand anyone who would not support the kind of amendment--and it's a friendly amendment--that has been put forward by Madame Boucher. I believe Madame Boucher does this because she has always displayed an affection for being inclusive. That is something I appreciate very much. When I sit in committee, I note Madame Boucher is a passionate member of this committee who quite often speaks from the heart. That is why I will support this motion, because I know that Madame Boucher has the people of Canada in her heart when she makes motions like this.

It is not a motion that is meant to be partisan or is meant to offend anyone. As she clearly stated, she appreciates the work that Monsieur D'Amours has done on this, and she's simply trying to make a friendly amendment that would allow Canadians to take part wholly and fully in the process to provide Air Canada with some feedback. That's what it's supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about feedback so Air Canada can make adjustments and can help their employees to respect a law that is very important to every member of this committee.

Once again, this amendment allows that to happen. Without this amendment, we are going down a very negative path. I simply would never vote in favour of our committee putting forward something that is negative, that is divisive, that is going to cause angst not only with Air Canada employees but also with customers.

For those reasons, I am going to support the well-thought-out amendment that Madame Boucher has put forward. I think it is right to do so.

I encourage every member of this committee to seriously reflect on how they hope customers will see our input. I hope they reflect on how Air Canada has been a major contributor to the economy and has done its utmost to try to push forward, to respect, the Official Languages Act in many areas.

Yes, they have some work to do. There are some improvements to make. Our committee has done some good work in making some suggestions with regard to that.

Coming back to this motion and this amendment, the motion does not help Air Canada. It does not help Canadians.

It will not help to have the cards sent to the official language commissioner, in my opinion. I believe, as was said before, we need to make sure that Air Canada can address the problems that arise from these comments and also that Air Canada can commend the employees who do good work and who provide valuable service to Canadian travellers.

That's why I believe the amendment is probably the best way for us to go. I would hope that all members of this committee would take that to heart, as does Madame Boucher, when they make their decision. I'm hoping to see them all support this friendly amendment. Then we can move on to other business.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Glover.

Ms. Boucher, the floor is yours.

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

I would like to talk about my amendment to the motion once again, because I feel it is very important. Indeed, when I requested a "friendly amendment", I did so in an effort to take some initiative. We must not always focus on the bad; we must also look at the good. Perhaps Air Canada could become, in what I hope is the not too distant future, a pillar that finally understands what customer service is all about. That was my purpose.

Having myself worked in customer service my entire life before coming here as a member of Parliament, I think that it is very important for everybody to receive this type of comment, be it negative or positive. This helps balance things, focusing on shortcomings and suggesting corrective measures. It is much easier to take corrective action in this manner.

I will reread the motion with the proposed amendment I made earlier:

That the Standing Committee on Official Languages invite Air Canada to once again place a prescribed complaint form for both positive and negative comments pertaining to services in both official languages in the front seat pocket of all its aircraft, with prepaid postage and addressed to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

I feel it is important that this motion include these two aspects. Hence we can ensure that we are not simply putting out a report but that we are now able to provide Air Canada with tools so that it can improve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Ms. Boucher.

This morning we have a new member with us, coming from the Liberal bench.

I would invite Mr. Murphy to address this committee.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A long time ago I sat here as a member of this committee.

I simply do not understand the reason behind the amendment, and I totally disagree with Ms. Glover's comments.

First of all, I would like to point out that in New Brunswick, we do not have the services of Air Canada whatsoever. We do, however, have services provided by Jazz. This company is not the same "animal" as Air Canada, because it is not subject to the same obligations.

Then, I wanted to say—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Murphy, allow me to tell you that Jazz is bound by contract to Air Canada—

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I am quite aware of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Further, it falls indirectly under the Official Languages Act. You know that.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

May I continue?

So, Air Canada is an entity which is subject to the Official Languages Act. Ms. Glover was saying that there were concerns because of the possibility that Air Canada might be forced to provide complaint or compliment forms—but nothing is being done for the moment. However, it should be pointed out that section 10 of the Official Languages Act clearly states that Air Canada must offer bilingual services in Canada's main airports, including those located in and around Ottawa, and also on flights between Montreal and Moncton—which do not exist—and elsewhere in New Brunswick—which do not exist, either. That's my background. I have a lot of concerns, because this does not apply at all to New Brunswick, and that is unfortunate.

Something else concerns me as well. The complaint form has been in existence for several years now. It already exists. I imagine that, since Air Canada has already provided the complaint form in the past, it is not worried. We don't know of any correspondence addressed to Air Canada which states that there is dissatisfaction with the fact that there is a complaint form. Air Canada created the complaint form, which is not a complaint and compliment form.

There is basically something lacking as far as the amendment is concerned. I am a lawyer. I'm sorry about that, but I am a lawyer. When a lawyer pleads in court, when he pleads a case concerning human rights before a commission, it never revolves around a compliment form. You don't appear before a judge to make your case against the defendant, to pursue litigation, by beginning to say that you would like to compliment the opposing party. You do not tell the court that you want to make a complaint, but that you also have good things to say.

In English, to make it clear, the reason the official languages commissioner exists is to ensure that the Official Languages Act is being followed. Like all complaints, like all disturbances, like all claims people have, that is usually the result of complaints, not compliments. It seems ridiculous to me that you would want to add compliments to a complaint form for a body that exists to address grievances and complaints. The official languages commissioner will take care of the good points about Air Canada, which Madam O'Neill-Gordon, Madam Wong, Mr. Weston, and the others have made. We're not anti-Air Canada on the level of their service. They will get that feedback. The official languages commissioner will do investigations, and I would imagine these will be very full investigations that say, by and large, Air Canada does a very good job in delivering its services in compliance with the Official Languages Act.

But in order to ensure their obligations, you have to have a complaint form, because it is a process and it is a commission, and like all other commissions, it is what is going wrong under the law that provides an obligation on its part. This isn't the Better Business Bureau. This isn't a Zagat survey. This isn't Expedia, rating the best hotels or the best airlines in the world. This is very serious. The issue of compliance with the Official Languages Act is very serious and therefore ought to be driven by what Air Canada has already provided, a complaint form.

That's my comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Murphy, for pleading your case.

We will now move to Mr. Godin.