:
Thank you very much. It is a great pleasure to be here with you this morning.
[English]
I apologize for being a few moments late. The one member of the committee who represents a riding in the city of Ottawa will know that last night was a tough night and a stressful night, but it turned out well in the end.
An hon. member: It had a good outcome.
Hon. John Baird: A good outcome; that's right. That's one thing the member for Ottawa--Vanier and I can firmly agree on.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I would like to thank you for your invitation to discuss the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to congratulate you for your excellent work on the official languages file.
[English]
While I am here to talk about Air Canada, I understand that your committee also considered official language obligations at airports last fall, so I would like to take a minute to clarify the federal government's role in those.
All national airport authorities have official languages obligations by virtue of the Airport Transfer Act and the Official Languages Act. The President of the Treasury Board is responsible for the Official Languages Act, while the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer of the Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for defining, monitoring, and enforcing language obligations. Later this month, I understand, the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer will be issuing clarifications with respect to the official languages obligations of airport authorities. I look forward to seeing that work.
Now let us focus on Air Canada. As you know, when Air Canada was a crown corporation it was subject to the Official Languages Act. While the Official Languages Act itself is very broad in scope, two provisions are of particular interest when speaking about official language obligations of Air Canada: one, the duty to provide service to the public in both official languages; two, the rights of employees to work in their official language of choice.
When Air Canada was privatized in 1988, official language obligations were maintained on the company through the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
[Translation]
To this day, it is the only carrier in Canada subject to the Official Languages Act. However, all carriers must provide safety and security information in both Official Languages. In 2000, Air Canada acquired Canadian Airlines International, which had a largely unilingual anglophone workforce. At that time the Air Canada Public Participation Act was amended to ensure that Air Canada subsidiaries providing air services to the public did so in both official languages. The effect of this amendment was to require Air Canada to ensure that its subsidiary, Jazz, met legislated requirements to serve the public in a bilingual way.
Then, in 2003, Air Canada filed for bankruptcy protection. After significant restructuring, the carrier successfully exited from bankruptcy protection on September 30, 2004, with a new corporate structure that reflected a strategy focused on maximizing the value of the individual components of the company.
[English]
Coming out of restructuring and to this day, the Air Canada Public Participation Act continues to apply to Air Canada, including full official language obligations. Similarly, any future Air Canada subsidiaries will continue to be bound by the official languages obligation under the Air Canada Public Participation Act as currently constituted. However, as a result of the organizational restructuring, official languages obligations no longer apply with respect to operations that have been moved out from under Air Canada. For example, the Air Canada Public Participation Act does not apply to ACE Aviation Holdings Inc., which had been the parent company of Air Canada since its restructuring.
[Translation]
On June 15, 2006, your committee tabled a report regarding the application of the Official Languages Act to Air Canada and ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. The report called upon the government to reintroduce legislation that would be similar in scope and effect to Bill which died on the order paper the year before.
Late in 2006, our government introduced amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act through Bill . The bill was designed to maintain full official languages obligations for former internal divisions of Air Canada that had been spun off and were controlled by ACE Aviation Holdings Inc.; to extend obligations to provide bilingual services to the public, to Jazz, and any future affiliates of Air Canada that provided air services, as long as they were controlled by ACE Aviation Holdings Inc.; and to ensure that ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. provided communications to the public in both official languages.
Bill C-29 died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in September 2007. It was reintroduced as Bill , with no further amendments. Bill C-36 died on the order paper on September 7, 2008, as a result of the 2008 election.
[English]
Although many years have passed since Air Canada was a crown corporation and much has happened in the interim, official language obligations at Air Canada are still viewed by many Canadians and by our government as important. Our government is committed to upholding the Official Languages Act and protecting and promoting both official languages.
[Translation]
As articulated in the Speech from the Throne, Canada's two official languages are an integral part of our history and our government will continue to strengthen Canada's francophone identity.
[English]
We also should consider that the best way to maintain and advance official language rights in aviation is to ensure a healthy and viable industry. The airline industry is and has been facing significant economic challenges, such as the long-term impacts of September 11, 2001, high fuel costs, as well as the effects of communicable diseases such as the H1N1 virus.
However, amid these practical challenges, Air Canada has clearly demonstrated significant efforts to uphold its official language obligations, as indicated by various committee testimonies. The Commissioner of Official Languages tells me that in the lead-up to the Olympic Games they did a lot. This demonstrates that when they make a concentrated effort they can do better. The number of complaints received by the commissioner also indicates that they need to do better.
[Translation]
At a 2009 meeting of this committee, Ms. Louise McEvoy, General Manager of Official Languages and Diversity at Air Canada, reiterated the airline's commitment to improving bilingual capacity throughout the human resources cycle, including recruitment, hiring and training.
In preparation for the Vancouver Olympic Games, Air Canada held mandatory sessions for Vancouver employees not qualified in French, and planned similar sessions for employees in other cities. The goal of these sessions was to ensure that the official languages rights of all Air Canada consumers were respected, including in instances where employees were not officially qualified to do so.
[English]
I'm told that Air Canada has mounted publicity campaigns to attract additional bilingual candidates across the country and has noted in comments to the committee that attracting some individuals in certain regions has been difficult. I understand that some of you provided suggestions to improve that recruitment strategy, and I hope the suggestions will yield improved results.
[Translation]
Air Canada's testimony speaks to its dedication to upholding its official languages obligations under the Official Languages Act. Furthermore, following a recent discussion with the Commissioner of Official Languages, it is important to note the efforts made by Air Canada during the Olympic Games and that the efforts and investments made by this carrier paid off.
I would also like to note that my discussions with the Commissioner of Official Languages touched on the subject of strengthening Air Canada's compliance with its linguistic obligations. I was pleased to learn that his team will conduct a detailed audit regarding Air Canada and its obligations to provide bilingual service to the public. In meetings with employees and unions, this study will carefully examine the hiring practices, the designation of bilingual positions and the linguistic training of the Air Canada personnel in order to determine the underlying reasons for the complaints pertaining to official languages. I not only commend the efforts of the commissioner but I am also eager to review the conclusions of his study.
[English]
I am mindful that continuing to trace official language obligations to parts of an organization that are increasingly independent creates practical challenges. ACE Aviation Holdings and Air Canada, as private companies, can and likely will continue to modify their organizational structures for both corporate and economic reasons.
For example, Air Canada Cargo, which was spun off after the 2003-04 restructuring, has since been repatriated within Air Canada and is once again covered by the Air Canada Public Participation Act and the Official Languages Act.
I have also discussed with Commissioner Fraser the issue of Air Canada contractors such as Jazz and have noted the concerns of the member for Acadie--Bathurst who provided a personal example from one of his trips aboard Jazz.
[Translation]
In this context, I would like to note that I have also asked the commissioner to obtain more information on the nature of complaints that have been received regarding Jazz. Given that Jazz is a private company contracted by Air Canada, Air Canada, therefore, under article 25 of the Official Languages Act, has an obligation to ensure the services provided to the public on its behalf are in both official languages.
Because Jazz is not a federal institution under the Official Languages Act and has not been a subsidiary of Air Canada since 2008, the official languages commissioner has informed me that he cannot intervene directly with Jazz, but can only intervene with Air Canada, who is responsible for the official languages obligations.
[English]
I have asked my officials and my office staff to obtain more information from Air Canada to know how it maintains its obligations under the Official Languages Act with contractors such as Jazz and how it will work to enhance this practice in the future.
[Translation]
I am proud of the accomplishments of our Conservative government in the official language file. Our concrete actions, such as our funding for official languages, clearly demonstrate our commitment to preserve bilingualism in Canada.
I admit that the Air Canada file is a complex one, however, it is nevertheless important that we stay the course and keep working with the key stakeholders, such as the Commissioner of Official Languages, the carrier, my cabinet colleagues, such as the Minister for Official Languages, and you, members of the committee, to find solutions to the challenges that I have just mentioned.
[English]
It is important that Air Canada continue to meet its obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act and the Official Languages Act. I welcome the advice and thoughts of this committee and welcome the opportunity to have a dialogue.
Thank you. Merci.
:
I certainly welcome the commissioner's indication that he's going to conduct a review of this. I think that's important.
I think, and obviously I've said, in some shape there needs to be strengthening of the law by amending the legislation. If we're concerned that they're not following the legislation as closely as possible or are not making their best efforts to follow the legislation, then simply strengthening the legislation, if they're following what's there today, won't necessarily be the complete answer.
When I met with the Commissioner of Official Languages, one of the officials used the phrase “at the end of the day”, and I guess that's what I'm interested in. At the end of the day, what can we do as oversight, whether it's you as committee, whether it's me as a minister? What can we do in oversight to ensure that, at the end of the day, francophones in this country can get the services they have every right to expect?
It concerns me when you hear Mr. Godin talk about a flight between Montreal and Bathurst...obviously the biggest francophone population in North America is in Montreal, and in northern New Brunswick, I believe, the francophone majority—
Mr. Yvon Godin: It's 80%.
Hon. John Baird: It's 80%. I don't know about the city of Bathurst, but I know the region would be overwhelmingly francophone. That obviously is a fundamental concern if that's the regular experience. No one is perfect, everyone will make mistakes, but if that's a regular occurrence, that's not acceptable.
Air Canada has obligations today, without changing the legislation. We can put more teeth in the legislation, we can expand the legislation, but the legislation in its more minimal form isn't been followed, and that should be a first concern.
Mr. Minister, thank you, and thank you to the people who came with you this morning.
It appears to be very difficult to amend the act. However, your government is a champion when it comes to quickly amending legislation so it can be included in the Budget Implementation Act. The official languages situation is very important. You say that your government supports official languages, but when the time comes to act, we don't really see any results.
You said two things. First, you distinguished between complaints made against Air Canada and those made against Jazz. It is surprising that your officials did not tell you that on Tuesday of this week, Air Canada representatives showed us a chart which clearly indicated the differences between complaints made against Air Canada's airline services and those made against Jazz. We have the results for 2008, 2009 and 2010, and we even asked the airline to provide us with the results from the beginning of 2000. So it is difficult to understand why you cannot bring forward a bill. I think it's high time we looked at all of these elements.
Further, it seems so hard to make corporate changes. Perhaps I could ask the committee's analysts to explain to you what the situation was before the last bill was passed, and what it is like today. You should have this information to help you prepare a bill in the coming weeks. You mentioned these two things. You don't have the data on the number of complaints made against Air Canada and Jazz. So we will give you that information. If it is necessary, we will show you how the company is different today compared to what it was like before. I am convinced that we will shortly be able to provide you with the second element you need to table your bill. You said you would have to talk about it to your parliamentary leader in the House. However, I think we can provide you with the two main elements which are problematic. In the end, this is all about respecting our official languages.
My colleague, Ms. Boucher, can certainly corroborate what I am about to say. It took nearly two years, after I raised the matter in committee and elsewhere, to have a sign changed inside Jazz's Dash planes. In English, the sign said: “Do not smoke in the lavatory”. In French, it said: “Ne pas fumer la toilette”, "Do not smoke the lavatory". I'm sure you understood the translation. It took two years of filing complaints with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and with Jazz and Air Canada, to make the appropriate changes. It's simply a matter of respect.
Mr. Minister, I would like you to be a bit more proactive. This morning, I was convinced that you would make a grand announcement, namely that a bill amending some provisions relating to Air Canada and the respect of official languages would be introduced this week. I am extremely disappointed. Indeed, usually you are more proactive. We see it all the time, but I think that in this case, you missed the boat, or rather, the flight.
Mr. Minister, I hope that you will consider these elements. If you still need specific details to draft such a bill, I'm sure the committee will be very pleased to get them to you.
I don't know if you have any time left, but I would like to hear your reaction.
Mr. Minister, we have heard from a lot of witnesses, people who have spoken to this issue. Many colleagues as well, who travel with Air Canada, are very disappointed because they cannot get service in their own language. These are the facts.
We were told that VIA Rail, which had a similar problem, made huge progress, and that it will continue to work on providing service in both official languages throughout Canada. It would be wonderful if Air Canada did the same.
I would like to quote a brief paragraph. We met with Air Canada representatives last Tuesday. Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal, who is the Assistant General Counsel for Air Canada's Law Branch, said: “Of course, it is up to parliamentarians to present a bill to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act”.
So we are not here to back you into a corner, but to encourage and to help you table a bill. But you are not giving us a specific date. You are not giving the committee any tools to help it do its job and move forward with this situation. What might happen is that Air Canada's subsidiaries may be broken up into smaller entities, and we would lose complete control of the situation. We know that Mr. Fraser does not have the power to change the situation either. The only way to do so—this is what Mr. Fraser told us—is to introduce a bill.
Mr. Minister, I would strongly encourage you to do so. In fact, I will ask the committee—if it's possible—I would ask for people to listen; I see that some of my colleagues are standing, Mr. Chairman—to make a motion.
This motion is to encourage you, Mr. Minister, and to help you make the case with the Prime Minister. The motion reads as follows:
The Standing Committee on Official Languages invites the Minister of Transportation to table a bill whereby the Official Languages Act would apply to Air Canada, its subsidiaries and partners, and that the bill be studied by the Standing Committee on Official Languages this spring.
I think we can unanimously support this motion, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Minister, a motion from the committee will probably help you make your case, and that way we will know that there is a bill coming this spring, and not in a year or two, when we will have to start this whole process all over again.
What do you say to that?