Official Languages Committee on June 15th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you.

Mr. Lefebvre, go ahead.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to Mr. Généreux's comment. We would like to see Air Canada consider bilingualism an advantage rather than an inconvenience. The president, Mr. Rovinescu, told us today that he would like a level playing field, the expression used in the business world, and for everyone to be on an equal footing. That's why I think he likely sees bilingualism as an inconvenience. He could tell us it's an advantage. Even though he doesn't agree with the content of the commissioner's report, he could tell us that Air Canada wants to improve and will make every possible effort to do so on an ongoing basis. That's what we'd like to see, but today we saw frustration with the report and with having to be here. That's also somewhat frustrating for us.

I will now speak a bit about Jazz.

Ms. Sénécal, when you appeared before the committee in 2010, you said that Jazz had been created as a private company, separate from Air Canada.

Mr. Di Iorio asked a question earlier about the collective agreement. There was a discussion about the fact that employees could use the language of work of their choice. I think that applies to Air Canada. It concerns part V of the Official Languages Act.

Do Jazz employees have the same rights as Air Canada employees under their collective agreement?

[Louise-Hélène Sénécal]

It's not rights, but obligations.

Our relationship with Jazz is not based on control. We have a contractual relationship with the company. In our contract, we ask Jazz to provide services in the other official language when the demand is high, to comply with the act. Jazz is responsible for managing how its employees provide the service. We periodically check on the company. We tell the company that it must arrange to provide the service.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Service is one thing, but what about the employees?

[Louise-Hélène Sénécal]

Jazz employees have never had the right to work in the language of their choice.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

However, Air Canada employees do have that right.

[Louise-Hélène Sénécal]

For Air Canada, the obligation is direct.

The obligations imposed on Jazz are set out in section 10 of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which was amended in 2000. This section requires that Air Canada see to it that the services provided by its subsidiaries respect official languages. When Jazz stopped being an Air Canada subsidiary, it began to operate flights for us at that time. We changed our business model.

Section 25 of the Official Languages Act states that the federal institution must ensure that the companies that provide services for it comply with official languages obligations.

Whether it be a subsidiary or a separate company that provides services for us, Air Canada's obligations remain the same.

[David Rheault]

I would like to add something.

Over the past 15 years, at Air Canada's request, Jazz has increased its proportion of bilingual flight attendants, which has gone from 26% to almost 80%. At Jazz, almost 80% of flight attendants throughout the country are bilingual. That is what explains that more and more...

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Rheault. Mr. Lefebvre's speaking time has expired.

We will now hear from Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

You mentioned among other things that you did not like the commissioner's report, but in fact successive commissioners' reports have shown that there are problems.

In this regard, there have been five bills that aimed to improve the situation and to beef up bilingual services at Air Canada, in 2005, 2007, 2008, 2011 and 2015. Unfortunately, these bills never saw the light of day, which was also due somewhat to a lack of political will.

The commissioner says that that is enough and that we must act so that there is finally a bill. In this regard, I would like to move a motion I already tabled, which we may debate and vote on later. It reads as follows:

That the Official Languages Committee make it a priority to undertake an emergency study of Air Canada and the application of the Official Languages Act. That this study begin on June 13, involve a maximum of six meetings, and conclude in October 2016.

We can talk about it later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

You may consider your motion tabled.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The CEO, Mr. Rovinescu, mentioned that none of the commissioner's recommendations were acceptable. I don't understand how it can be said that none of the commissioner's recommendations are acceptable, since he is offering parliamentarians three choices. The objective is not to slap you on the wrist, but to help you and to work with you in order that the Official Languages Act be respected.

My preamble is a bit long. I will conclude by saying this. In your document, you say you intend to consult minority official language groups. I find this interesting, because groups that represent official language minority communities, such as the FCFA, have told us that we have to give the commissioner greater powers.

I see a contradiction in what you are saying. You say that you don't want to do anything, that you would rather consult people, but at the same time, you don't want to listen to the recommendations, such as that of the FCFA, that we give the commissioner greater powers.

[David Rheault]

I would like to comment on part of your preamble.

You say that we disapprove of all of the commissioner's reports. I must reply that there are certain reports and certain things he did which we do approve. For instance, in 2008 and 2012, when the commissioner compared Air Canada with the airport authorities and CATSA, he compared the various industry entities. In each case, Air Canada showed a higher level of compliance with official languages than its peers in the industry. You may consult the commissioner's report. It is detailed and contains charts showing the various points of service that were analyzed. We do make efforts, which the commissioner acknowledged.

Moreover, you said that the purpose of the recommendations in the last commissioner's report was not to slap Air Canada on the wrist. However, when there is talk of imposing fines, I think we are headed somewhat in that direction. I am going to let Ms. Sénécal talk about this, but our approach is to say that we must examine the industry as a whole in order to assess the rights of passengers. The commissioner is not opposed to that. He said in his report that he was in favour of the standardization of passengers' language rights. He also quoted the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, which made the same recommendation. Consequently, Air Canada's approach to the industry is also shared by other authorities.

[Louise-Hélène Sénécal]

I want to specify that, in the commissioner's last report, the five recommendations you mentioned and which we oppose are coercive measures directed at Air Canada alone.

However, if we look at the facts, Mr. Choquette, if we consult the previous reports, we see that it is not true that Air Canada is the worst offender. Over most of the past years, Canada Post has had a worse record than Air Canada. When comparisons were made, airport authorities had a higher number of complaints than Air Canada. You have to look at the government apparatus itself. For statistical purposes, the commissioner chose to separate the departments. Put them back together and you will see that the number of complaints about Air Canada is minuscule in comparison to the whole.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Only for...

[Louise-Hélène Sénécal]

We are opposed to coercive measures directed only against Air Canada, which, in our opinion, would not be legal.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

On this, Ms. Sénécal, I will reply that a measure was suggested, and I tried three times to get your CEO to say that it could turn out to be very interesting. In fact, the FCFA has also asked for that measure. I am referring to the possibility of having binding agreements. This would not only apply to Air Canada, but to any organization that did not comply with the Official Languages Act. So it is not accurate to say that it is an attack against Air Canada alone.

Yes, the commissioner observed that there were problems at Air Canada, and one of the responses to that would be binding agreements that could be turned to whenever an organization or a department did not comply with its official language obligations.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

You have a little time left. We will hear the answer.

[Louise-Hélène Sénécal]

Mr. Choquette, the commissioner's report is about measures that only target Air Canada. He is suggesting amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Fine.

The next person to have the floor will be Ms. Lapointe.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

Let's continue.

According to the Official Languages Commissioner, certain complainants emphasized the negative attitude shown by Air Canada employees when they asked to be served in French. Why, in your opinion, do certain employees react negatively to service requests in French, whereas Air Canada seems full of good will and sensible on this issue? It is as though it is difficult to instill a culture, as we said earlier. What is your opinion?

[David Rheault]

Of course I listened to the commissioner's appearance here. They spoke of disdain and contempt being shown on some occasions. When the Thibodeau case went before the courts, the court specified that Air Canada employees had not shown contempt, and that Air Canada employees had not had a contemptuous attitude toward the passengers.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

They spoke about a negative attitude.

[David Rheault]

People talked about disdain and contempt. I will tell you honestly, I am coming back to that because this affected me, it affected me and affected people around me.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

That is not what I said. I spoke about a negative attitude.