Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 13 - Evidence - Meeting of May 25, 2015
OTTAWA, Monday, May 25, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:03 p.m. to continue its study of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public).
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon everyone. My name is Claudette Tardif, and I am a senator from Alberta and the chair of this committee. I will now ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: My name is Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis, and I am from Quebec City. I am the deputy chair of the committee. Welcome.
Senator Seidman: Good afternoon. My name is Judith Seidman, and I am from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Poirier: Good afternoon. My name is Rose-May Poirier, and I am a senator from New Brunswick. Welcome to the committee.
Senator Maltais: I am Ghislain Maltais, a senator from Quebec City, and I listen to the chair.
Senator Chaput: Good afternoon. My name is Maria Chaput, and I am a senator from Manitoba.
The Chair: Today, we are continuing our study of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public), sponsored by Senator Chaput. Clause 2 of Bill S-205 seeks to guarantee access by members of the public to services in the official language of their choice at major transportation hubs.
We have joining us representatives from a variety of airline industry organizations who are affected by this bill. We are pleased to have with us Daniel-Robert Gooch, President of the Canadian Airports Council; Richmond Graham, President and CEO of the Regina Airport Authority; Monette Pasher, Marketing Director for the Charlottetown Airport Authority; Ed Schmidtke, President and CEO of the Thunder Bay Airport Authority; Marc-André O'Rourke, Executive Director of the National Airlines Council of Canada; and from Air Canada, David Rheault, Director, Government Affairs and Community Relations, and Louise-Hélène Sénécal, Assistant General Counsel.
Thank you all for being here this afternoon. The clerk has organized the order of the presentations. I am told that Mr. Gooch is going first. Once everyone has had a chance to give their presentations, the senators will ask you questions. And now, without further ado, over to you Mr. Gooch.
[English]
Daniel-Robert Gooch, President, Canadian Airports Council: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, honourable senators.
[Translation]
Good afternoon, honourable senators.
[English]
My name is Daniel-Robert Gooch, President of the Canadian Airports Council. Thank you for inviting me and my airport colleagues before your committee here today. Allow me to open by telling you a little bit about our national association.
[Translation]
The CAC is the voice of Canada's airports community. We number 48 members operating more than 100 airports across the country — both small and large. This includes all of Canada's international gateways, all the privately operated National Airports System airport authorities, and many other local airports.
[English]
Our mission is simple. We work to safeguard the safety and security of Canada's aviation sector while promoting growth in travellers and goods to, from, through and within Canada.
Air transportation is an economic growth enabler, with airports serving as the essential infrastructure that connects communities from coast to coast to coast within Canada. Airports also link Canadian businesses with international markets to facilitate trade. Not least, our airports help boost a tourism industry that contributes $88 billion annually to the Canadian economy.
[Translation]
As a matter of principle and practice, Canada's airports are strongly committed to providing the highest levels of customer service, including obligations under the Official Languages Act to provide a level of service for travellers in either of Canada's official languages.
Airports are very sensitive and responsive to the needs of their passengers. People from all walks of life arrive on a daily basis from every region in Canada and from all over the world.
[English]
Canada's airports are filled with travellers with a multitude of language needs, including a growing number of travellers who speak neither of Canada's official languages. As international travel as a share of overall travel continues to grow for Canada's airports, we can expect that the demand for minority language services will grow as well. Also expected to grow are the needs of our aging population and a growing contingent of travellers with mobility needs.
Canada's airports are committed to serving the needs of all of these passengers to the best of their abilities and in the most effective way possible. We believe there is ample evidence that we are doing so successfully.
In fact, excellence in passenger experience is a hallmark of Canada's airports. Each year, our airports score top marks on international customer service rankings from Skytrax and Airports Council International's Airport Service Quality Awards. ASQ is a global program to recognize the best airports in the world according to passenger satisfaction surveys. Numerous Canadian airports come out on top year after year in North American and world rankings.
[Translation]
We have discussed the many customer service accolades our airports have received. Now how about the complaints? We did an informal survey just last week, and from what we are hearing from our members, there are very few complaints from the travelling public concerning the availability of services in French or English.
In fact, none of our member airports reported receiving more than a handful of complaints about official language services.
[English]
This is the context in which Canada's airports have reviewed the proposed legislation before you today.
Airports have several concerns about the practicality of some of the measures proposed in Bill S-205, which could present significant operational challenges if this bill were to move forward.
First, on the question of equal-quality services in Bill S-205, how would equal quality of language service be defined, measured and enforced? Would it mean the same thing in different parts of the country? The answer to this, to us, is unclear.
Second, do we know the projected implementation cost of an equal-quality service delivery model? If we don't, would an in-depth study be conducted to properly assess the impact such a change would have on airport business operations? This would be prudent as the costs could be significant for airports of any size.
Third, what would the consultation process in proposed subsection 23.1(2) look like? Which members of the community would be consulted to evaluate and monitor service quality? Would the findings of these consultations have an ability to affect airport service delivery? If so, to what degree?
Fourth, airport authorities directly control only a small portion of the services and businesses that operate inside the airport. Airports already have taken steps to encourage support of language needs, but airports have limited means with which to enforce this with partner organizations.
Under Bill S-205, what mechanism or recourse would an airport authority use to enforce equal-quality service delivery with airports and businesses and service providers? Would there be penalties for non-compliance, either to the business in question or to the airport authority itself?
Finally, the proposed expansion of official language service delivery requirements to airports not currently subject to the Official Languages Act — as these airports do not meet passenger volume or significant demand tests — raises questions around the availability of human resources.
In employment markets with less than 5 per cent minority language population, the ability to hire bilingual staff would be an enormous challenge. How would airports be expected to staff positions appropriately when a qualified labour pool may not exist? We understand this to be a challenge from our airport members, even in markets with significant populations of both English and French speakers today. There are many unanswered questions.
[Translation]
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, airport authorities in Canada today are private organizations managing a public asset. We take very seriously our commitment to serve the needs of travellers, including those of travellers with language needs. However, it is also appropriate to expect that Canada's airports will serve the needs of travellers in the most effective manner possible. These are decisions that the transfer of airports specifically envisioned would be handled not in Ottawa, but at the local level.
[English]
Madam chair, here are some of the thoughts and concerns I'm pleased to share with you and your honourable colleagues today on behalf of Canada's airports. In the interest of time, I would like to conclude my remarks, and I thank you for your attention.
The Chair: The next witness will be Richmond Graham, President, Regina Airport Authority.
Richmond Graham, President and CEO, Regina Airport Authority: Good evening, senators. My name is Richmond Graham, and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Regina Airport Authority and the operator of the Regina International Airport.
Thank you for the invitation and opportunity to address the Senate committee on observations on the content and proposed amendments to the Official Languages Act outlined in Bill S-205.
The Regina Airport Authority is a not-for-profit corporation that assumed operations of Regina International Airport from Transport Canada in 1999. Our vision is to have a sustainable and customer-service-focused gateway airport that enhances economic growth and access to Regina and southern Saskatchewan, with a mission to manage and operate our airport in a safe, secure, efficient, commercially viable and environmentally responsible manner. By every measure, our airport delivers on this vision and mission.
The Regina International Airport is an economic engine for the community, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in local economic activity while providing one of the largest employment generators in the region. The Economic Impact Study of Regina International Airport conducted in 2012 confirms the positive economic impact of the operation of our airport on the city of Regina and southern Saskatchewan. Regina International Airport generated three quarters of a billion dollars of gross domestic product activity, or 8 per cent of Regina's total GDP in 2012.
While we are committed to the economic growth and success of our airport and community, it is our mandate to provide the best level of service to our passengers, including meeting the requirements outlined in the Official Languages Act. The Regina Airport Authority operates within these regulations to provide the travelling public with information in both official languages as it relates to health, safety and security.
To this end we provide information to the travelling public by ensuring signage, information and services related to their health, safety and security are provided in both official languages. We also ensure that services outlined in the act and regulations are available in both official languages. A few small examples of how we currently meet these needs include the following: all of our baggage carousels have labels in both official languages warning of the dangers of sitting or standing on the carousels, to ensure the safety of our passengers; signs on the arrival stairs indicate to passengers they are not permitted, for security purposes, to go up the stairs, as this is for arriving passengers only; and our first aid room indicates that service is available with both pictogram and both official languages for the health of our passengers. Finally, cafeteria, car rental, automated teller machines and many other services are available in both official languages.
Since December 2008, when our airport reached the 1 million passenger mark, we have had very few concerns and comments with regard to the provision of language assistance and meeting the needs of our passengers in both official languages. As one of the participating Canadian airports in the quarterly Airport Service Quality surveying, in 2014 our passenger satisfaction survey results did not highlight any concerns related to official languages.
As a result of the feedback received at our airport, we believe the current legislation is meeting the needs of our passengers, and we offer the following comments about the proposed Bill S-205, and in particular the amendments in proposed subsections 23.1(1) and 23.1(2) in that context.
As I indicated earlier, our mission is to manage and operate our airport in a safe, secure, efficient, commercially viable and environmentally responsible manner, and it is always front and centre in our decision making. Our passengers are already paying many additional costs related to air travel on top of their base ticket price, and the economic impact to our airport and our community of the proposed changes outlined in Bill S-205 is likely to be significant and drive costs to the public up further.
Specific to the proposed amendment in 23.1(1), I assert that the phrase "equal quality" is too ambiguous as it relates to the provision of equal-quality services. As the current regulations serve our public well, it is questionable that these changes, whose meaning is unclear, would provide more value to the travelling public than those requirements already in place.
In addition to my comment on subsection 23.1(1), I add that subsection 23.1(2) is ambiguous and highly subjective. Members of the English and French linguistic minority communities, as outlined in this amendment, would have the opportunity to subject their personal views and opinions as to what they find of "equal quality" and "appropriate consultation," all of which could drive costs upward to achieve a goal of questionable value. I remind the Senate committee that the airport is already successful in meeting the needs and expectations of the travelling public in both official languages under the current act and regulations.
In addition to our English- and French-speaking passengers, Regina and southern Saskatchewan are growing. They have culturally diversified. There's a multilingual population who utilize the Regina International Airport for business and leisure purposes and many who I am pleased to say choose to work at our airport. With our record-breaking passenger numbers, we will continue to provide all of our guests the services and necessary communications they require when utilizing our facility and will continue to meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act as written.
Madam chair, honourable senators, thank you all for this opportunity to speak to you today regarding the Regina Airport Authority's concerns with respect to the proposed amendments to the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you kindly, Mr. Graham. Now, we will hear from Ed Schmidtke from Thunder Bay.
[English]
Ed Schmidtke, President and CEO, Thunder Bay International Airport Authority: Madam chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today on the subject of official languages policy as it may affect the Thunder Bay airport.
Allow me to tell you about our airport. Thunder Bay International Airport Authority Inc. became the steward of the airport under a ground lease with the Government of Canada in the fall of 1997. In the past 18 years, we have proudly developed a culture of customer service, innovation and cost-efficiency.
We pride ourselves on meeting the needs and challenges facing our customers and the moral ownership of our airport. Despite a declining population, our community is now served with a record 15 daily departures to the Toronto aviation system.
Living in a relatively remote community, we understood the need to facilitate low-cost airfares right from the outset. Our airport serves as a regional hub, where small, local carriers connect the remote portions of northwestern Ontario to the rest of the world. Many customers use our airport out of necessity, as road connections do not exist. We live in a part of Canada that is very dependent on air service and demands the lowest price possible. We are proud to say that we are the only airport in the National Airports System that has retired our airport improvement fee. Where many airports now charge upwards of $30 per passenger, we do not. This decision directly reduces the cost of air service to the travelling public while necessitating the need for innovation and cost-control in our airport operations. We welcome this challenge on behalf of our moral ownership and live up to it on a daily basis.
Our drive for customer service excellence is tested through regular consumer surveys. Consumer surveys are conducted in the terminal building twice annually to determine customer satisfaction. The survey is designed by professors and graduate students at Lakehead University with both multiple choice and open-ended questions to solicit both objective and subjective feedback. Survey responses have prompted multiple investments on our part to correct service deficiencies.
Although these surveys have not identified any multilingual service shortcomings, we strive to solve any issues quickly when language is an issue. One of the many benefits of a small airport operation the size of Thunder Bay is that almost all staff, regardless of employer, know each other on a first name basis. When language, regardless of whatever the language may be, is a barrier to effective communications, resources are provided on a voluntary basis from anyone who can help.
Our business is a competitive business. We have data confirming that customers in our catchment area drive to patronize airports in Minnesota instead of using our own. Providing superior customer service in a cost-effective manner is an essential component of maximizing market demand and recruiting air service to northwestern Ontario. Our ability to draw upon multilingual employees from anywhere on our airfield is but one example of our efforts towards innovation and cost-control in support of customer service.
We respectfully submit that, for these reasons, the current regulatory regime serves our customers well while, at the same time, providing the residents of northwestern Ontario with a cost-effective and competitively positioned air service hub.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee this afternoon.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
From the Charlottetown Airport Authority, Ms. Monette Pasher, please.
Monette Pasher, Marketing Director, Charlottetown Airport Authority: Honourable Senate committee members, thank you for the invitation and opportunity to address you this evening.
I'm the Marketing Director for the Charlottetown Airport in Prince Edward Island. Our airport is a vital link for our community and our province. Our mandate is to operate a safe and secure airport while contributing to the growth of our Island economy.
First, I would like to commend the committee on the work you are doing to improve French-language service across the country. We recognize it is a significant and valuable service. Prince Edward Island has a vibrant Acadian population, and as Islanders we feel that our Acadian heritage is an important cultural element of our provincial identity.
Customer service is integral to everything we do. When running an airport, safety, security and exceeding our customers' expectations are always top of mind. Charlottetown Airport takes great pride in serving our customers. We institute programs to gather customer feedback and have taken part in industry-wide benchmarking surveys to measure customer service at airports.
For the past number of years, we have been tracking our own performance through statistically significant research conducted at the airport directly with our passengers. These surveys provide valuable feedback on what is important to our customers and areas where perhaps we may need some improvement. In my eight years of working with the airport, we have never received a complaint, either verbally or through our customer feedback surveys, about not offering sufficient service in French.
Airport authorities have a complex business model to manage, and it is a job we take very seriously. It involves active management of more than 20 touch points that influence the passengers' experience. These touch points represent various organizations, including airlines, government agencies like CATSA and CBSA, security providers, baggage handlers, car rental agencies, food and beverage suppliers, retailers, parking lot attendants, visitor information kiosks and taxi drivers, just to name a few. Our job is to create a seamless experience across all service providers.
We work with our airport partners to exceed our customers' expectations and take great pride in the work we do. For example, our airport was the first business in Prince Edward Island to become WorldHost certified. This is a tourism customer service training program renowned worldwide. Alf our front-line airport suppliers took part in this training, including the commissionaires, restaurant staff and even taxi companies. We strive to exceed our customers' expectations, and it involves many organizations working together to the benefit of the air traveller.
I would like to convey to the committee some of the challenges that exist with this bill for a smaller airport of our size. The main challenge is that Bill S-205 is a solution for a problem that we feel does not currently exist at the Charlottetown Airport. We must consider the size and scope of airport authorities being suggested to meet the Official Languages Act regulations. For example, we are Canada's smallest province, with approximately 145,000 residents. Our capital city of Charlottetown has approximately 35,000 residents. Equality of communication services in each official language would be difficult to deliver in a province of our size with the demographic of the French-speaking population that we have.
In Prince Edward Island, 3.8 per cent of the population report French as their mother tongue and 2 per cent speak French at home. At the Charlottetown Airport, all of our way finding and signage is in both official languages. This includes the entrance to the airport and signage within the terminal. Essential signage is already provided in both languages for health, safety, security, baggage and flight information in the terminal. In addition, our airport also has a seasonal visitor information centre that is operated by the Province of Prince Edward Island with bilingual staff.
There is currently no requirement for all of our contractors to provide service in French. In a province where the French-speaking population is small, it would be difficult to us to mandate our service providers to provide staff that will meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act, as they would face issues simply finding bilingual staff given the size and composition of our workforce.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that our airport is very responsive to the needs of our customers, and the issue of service in French has not arisen from our passengers. We should not aim to have a one-size-fits-all approach to service offerings at airports across this country, as based on size and geography we face different market forces and challenges. Our realities in Canada's smallest province of 135,000 people are not the same as other major centres across our country.
Thank you again for this opportunity to present our views on behalf of Charlottetown Airport.
[Translation]
The Chair: Now it is over to Marc-André O'Rourke, Executive Director of the National Airlines Council of Canada.
[English]
Marc-André O'Rourke, Executive Director, National Airlines Council of Canada: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and honourable committee members. Good evening.
[Translation]
Good evening. My name is Marc-André O'Rourke, and I am the Executive Director of the National Airlines Council of Canada, or NACC.
The NACC represents Canada's four largest passenger air carriers, Air Canada, Air Transat, LP Aviation Jazz and WestJet. We advocate for safe, sustainable and competitive air travel in order to provide Canadians with the best domestic and international service possible.
[English]
Airlines stimulate trade, travel and tourism. They link communities and families to each other and to the world. They unlock a community's potential and make it easier for businesses to access new customers and new markets.
Collectively, the member airlines of the National Airlines Council of Canada carry over 50 million passengers per year, serve more than 60 Canadian communities and directly employ more than 46,000 people.
[Translation]
Thank you for giving the NACC the opportunity to share its members' views on Bill S-205, which seeks to amend the portion of the Official Languages Act pertaining to communications with and services to the public.
[English]
Ensuring that the language rights, as presently set out in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act, are upheld is very important. We certainly value your committee's work in this regard.
I am here today to discuss the council's concerns with the bill's proposed changes to section 23 of the act, which deals with the travelling public's right to communicate with and receive services in either official languages at airports but also transportation hubs.
[Translation]
I must make clear, from the outset, that Canada's airlines are strongly committed to providing the best possible service to all travellers. That includes respecting official languages, as well as the current act and regulations. Airlines are genuinely motivated to provide passengers with high-quality service. And we take our commitment very seriously.
However, in light of how the bill is designed, we cannot support amendments that would likely significantly alter the current achievable criteria that are used to designate an airport as bilingual. It is important to note that numerous airports already provide passengers with bilingual service. That service is based on the presence of a real calculable demand, pursuant to the recommendations set out in the act and regulations. Furthermore — and this is key — it is mandatory, under the regulations, that all information concerning aviation safety and security requirements be communicated to passengers in both official languages throughout the country. This is a specific regulatory requirement that air carriers have to meet.
[English]
As we understand it, this bill would designate a number of Canadian airports as bilingual without a calculable corresponding demand. Today, the regulations require that, one, the first trigger, airports that serve more than 1 million passengers in a year, and two, the second trigger, airports where there is a "significant demand," which is described as 5 per cent demand from the public, must offer services in both official languages.
The services include the pre-board security screening, public announcements, airline counter services such as check-in, and retail services such as car rentals. The regulations also ensure that the very popular self-service kiosks' printed and pre-recorded materials are also captured.
In our view, the framework that acts to determine where services are required should be based on actual demand, and a demand that can be measured. By regularly taking into account changes in passenger traffic and population variations, we believe the current mechanism for determining the need for bilingual services is appropriate.
Bill S-205 will make changes to the Official Languages Act so as to perhaps arbitrarily require airports to ensure the services they provide to the public are in both official languages. These include airports that are located in metropolitan areas or that serve a national, provincial or territorial capital. The vast majority of these airports already have a bilingual distinction under the current framework. Those that do not are in locations where the data suggests that such service is not required.
Without a clear picture of how the proposed changes will impact operations, it is very difficult to determine the bill's real impact. However, what we do know is that the bill will increase the number of airports captured by the Official Languages Act and will place an additional financial and, as we've heard, resource burden on airports and airlines but also on the entire aviation sector. It's an industry, as you may know, that is already saddled by high taxes, fees and other charges. We must be mindful of that.
[Translation]
In conclusion, the NACC and its members wish to reaffirm their ongoing commitment to respecting both official languages. Over the years, Canada's airlines and our airports have made tremendous strides in improving the service provided to travellers. And that is especially true when it comes to respecting official languages.
[English]
Thank you very much for your time, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[Translation]
The Chair: We have one last witness.
David Rheault, Director, Government Affairs and Community Relations, Air Canada: Hello everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am accompanied by Louise-Hélène Sénécal, Air Canada's assistant general counsel. I'm going to read my notes in French. We've handed out a document, but there may be some variation in the English version, as I may add a few elements. My apologies. Afterwards, we would be pleased to answer any questions you have, whether in English or French.
[English]
On behalf of Air Canada, we are pleased to be here today to contribute to the committee's work.
[Translation]
Air Canada is proud to serve its clients in the official language of their choice. For us, it is a matter of culture and good client service. As a service organization, we constantly strive to improve service quality. Over the past few years, we have won a number of Skytrax awards, in honour of our client service and improved products.
The current legislation already imposes very extensive requirements on Air Canada, especially compared with our competitors. Our offices in 32 airports and over 170 flight routes are currently subject to the act. In many cases, we go beyond what is strictly legally required, because we believe it to be good business practice, and our clients appreciate it. For example, on all flights directly operated by Air Canada, there is always at least one bilingual flight attendant on duty to assist our clients, regardless of whether there is significant demand as per the act. We are proud of what we have accomplished, and our employees have worked very hard to make it happen.
To give you an idea of scale, Air Canada directly operates 4,000 flights per week, flights with medium- and long-haul aircraft on long routes or shorter, high-density routes like Montreal-Toronto. These aircraft have a capacity of 97 to 458 seats. In addition, 47 per cent of our flight attendants and approximately 30 per cent of our airport agents are bilingual.
We also ensure compliance with the act from our regional carrier partners, which operate flights under our name. They operate flights with smaller aircraft under the name of Air Canada Express; Jazz is the best known, but there are also Sky Regional, EVAS Air and Air Georgian. About 40 per cent of flights operated by Jazz are subject to the act, a total of over 2,000 flights per week. Nearly 75 per cent of Jazz flight attendants are bilingual, and that number is constantly growing. Keep in mind that Jazz is the result of a merger of a number of different regional carriers that we acquired, carriers that did not have the same obligations as we did. In 2001, when these air carriers began providing service on behalf of Air Canada, they didn't have the capacity to provide bilingual service. We invested resources and built that capacity over time.
For Sky Regional flight attendants, the bilingualism rate is around 90 per cent. This is a considerable challenge for our regional carriers, since a number of their flights have only a single flight attendant on board to provide service. Imposing bilingualism on these routes often means closing off employment opportunities for existing staff, even though the recruitment of bilingual employees is being promoted.
We have a few preliminary comments on the bill. We note that none of the airports to be automatically added are airports that have lost bilingual status. If the intent is to prevent the erosion of rights, this does not seem to us to be the solution. We also wonder why airports are being automatically added for meeting certain criteria that are unrelated to the demand, like being a provincial capital. Our airport authority colleagues have also raised that issue.
It is important to understand that, despite our recruitment and second-language education efforts, finding bilingual staff is difficult, and additional requirements could lead to a reallocation of resources, which could be detrimental to communities where the demand is actually significant. If, as the bill seems to suggest, we include people capable of communicating in an official language when assessing the demand, rather than first language officially spoken, it is very possible that the number of flights subject to the act will greatly increase and we will not have enough resources available to assign bilingual staff to those new flights. As a result, some flights where there is actually significant demand would suffer, since we cannot dismiss employees or make them bilingual overnight.
This leads us to a few observations. The current compliance and audit system does not effectively ensure the quality and availability of services provided by a business like Air Canada, which, I might add, is one of the most bilingual businesses in Canada, if not the most bilingual. Every year, we serve 38 million passengers, each of whom has 5 or 6 points of contact, so it is not surprising that we receive more complaints than a federal institution that does not directly serve the public.
Our operations are complex, and the current compliance and audit system does not take into account this complexity or the quality of services rendered to the client. Overall, Air Canada receives a relatively low number of complaints every year: between 40 and 50 complaints out of 38 million passengers served.
For example, we received a complaint that does not, in our view, reflect service quality. A passenger arrived and requested service in French. The bilingual agent was busy, and the passenger waited 10 minutes, according to the complaint. The bilingual agent went to the meeting, served the passenger, escorted the passenger to security, where no CATSA officers spoke French, and brought the passenger to the boarding gate. There were no bilingual service agents at the airport authority to offer assistance either. The result? Even though our employee went above and beyond his job requirements, having accompanied and assisted the passenger throughout the entire process, Air Canada received blame for the event.
In conclusion, we believe that the rules applicable to air travel should be reviewed and applied uniformly to all airlines serving Canadians. It is a question of choice for passengers and fairness for carriers.
The Chair: Thank you all very much for your presentations. You kept your remarks very concise, and I applaud you. Starting off the question and answer session will be Senator Fortin-Duplessis, the deputy chair of the committee, followed by Senator Maltais.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Welcome to all of you.
My first question is for Mr. Rheault. As we speak, what percentage of your workforce is able to provide service in both official languages?
Mr. Rheault: As I mentioned in my presentation, it depends on the type of employee. In the case of flight attendants, it hovers between 47 per cent and 50 per cent. For airport agents, it's around 30 per cent, and for call centre employees, I don't have the figure with me, but I believe it's approximately 50 per cent. It depends on the type of position and the number of employees.
In terms of the number of bilingual employees, it's important to keep in mind that, in order to raise that number, we always encourage the hiring of bilingual staff. In certain circumstances, however, finding bilingual staff is challenging. It's clear that, when hiring, Air Canada gives priority to bilingual candidates.
Louise-Hélène Sénécal, Assistant General Counsel, Air Canada: I'd just like to interject, if I may. Our system is based on the point of entry. No matter where the client is calling, they will be put in contact with the first available French-speaking agent. So even though there are more employees in Eastern Canada, those employees also serve clients in Western Canada. The employee's location doesn't matter. When calls come in, clients are served by those agents.
Mr. Rheault: We are currently hiring staff for our call centres, and we hire more people in Saint-Jean, New Brunswick, and Montreal because those areas have larger pools of available bilingual staff.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: When you hire staff now, do you give priority to people who are bilingual?
Mr. Rheault: Absolutely. All hiring committees take that criterion into account. Preference is given to bilingual staff, as that meets a demand and is in line with the services we want to provide to clients. However, it is impossible to hire bilingual staff in some circumstances. We often reach out to local communities for help in recruiting bilingual staff. They are involved in our recruitment process, so that, to an extent, we can hire as many bilingual employees as possible. That is really a priority for us in terms of customer service.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: My next question is for Ms. Sénécal. Ms. Sénécal, could you tell us a bit more about the grey area when it comes to the application of the Official Languages Act to Air Canada subsidiaries? How can Jazz avoid having the same official language obligations as Air Canada while keeping within the spirit of the legislation?
Ms. Sénécal: First, Jazz is not subject to the act. Air Canada has the obligation to ensure that the companies — be they subsidiaries or not — that provide services on its behalf do so in compliance with the Official Languages Act. So the obligation falls on Air Canada. No direct obligation is currently imposed on Jazz, Air Georgian, EVAS or Sky Regional. The obligation lies with Air Canada, and through our commercial agreements, we ensure that the parameters are set so that services are provided in the language deemed necessary.
Therefore, in addition to the so-called automatic flights, we carry out surveys at appropriate times.
Mr. Rheault: Airport merchants are in the exact same situation. In other words, the airport authority is responsible for applying the legislation and must take into account its obligation toward subcontractors and in terms of the various services provided at the airport. But the airport authority has to make sure that the legislation is applied. Similarly, Air Canada is subject to the legislation, but it has an obligation to ensure that the airlines that provide services on its behalf are enforcing the provisions of the act.
Ms. Sénécal: Mr. O'Rourke, from the National Airlines Council of Canada, said that, under the Canadian Aviation Regulations, the obligation applies to all airlines. Section 705.43 stipulates that all air operators have the obligation to provide information and safety briefings in both official languages. So Jazz is also under that obligation.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: At times, I have found it to be lacking, and that is why I asked you the question.
Senator Maltais: My first question is for Mr. Gooch. Do you have an idea of how many airports are owned entirely by Transport Canada?
[English]
Mr. Gooch: I don't know the exact number. You would have to check with Transport Canada. I know they have been looking to transfer some of them. They're not members of our organization.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: In your brief, you said that the airports were managed locally. We have that in Quebec. I come from northern Quebec, where one of the airports is managed by Transport Canada, and the others are managed by cities or regional municipalities. That is not causing any problems anywhere.
The only issue is that you have airports on the border between Ontario and Quebec. Have you had any problems or complaints concerning the language of signage at those airports? I am talking about northern Quebec — for instance, Grande Rivière — compared with Hearst, in northern Ontario.
Mr. Gooch: I can speak only for our members. Among our members are two airports in Quebec and a number of airports in Ontario, but not really any of the smallest ones on the border.
[English]
We did a survey of our members. We have 48 members throughout the country, mostly from the large airports, down to airports the size of about Prince George or Sidney, Nova Scotia.
When we asked about complaints received, they all pretty much indicated receiving fewer than five complaints related to language. There is not an airport anywhere in the country in our membership that has indicated they receive a significant number of complaints.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I am not asking you the question to be mean, but the clientele in the northern parts of Quebec, Ontario and the rest of Canada is 60 per cent to 65 per cent Aboriginal — First Nations. Often, especially if they are older people — aged 50 and over — they do not understand either French or English. They only speak their own language, especially Inuit. That is less true for younger people.
I come from northern Quebec, and that was a problem until the arrival of Air Creebec, an Inuit airline that serves only northern Quebec. Instructions and signage are in Cree on airplanes and at the airport. Have you dealt with these kinds of problems at the airports in the far north?
[English]
Mr. Gooch: I'm not familiar with issues specific to the North, but, senator, I believe you've touched on an important point, which is that our airports throughout the country serve a very diverse range of passengers. We have travellers here in Canada who speak languages other than our official languages. We have travellers from all over the world who speak different languages and a growing number of travellers with challenges associated with an aging population.
I think the common theme that binds our airports together is a commitment to a high level of customer service across all of the needs of these passengers. It's a diverse set of needs.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: My other question is for Mr. O'Rourke. You mentioned four large companies, including Air Canada, that are part of your council.
Mr. O'Rourke: Those are the four members of our council.
Senator Maltais: Are other companies, including charters, members of your council?
Mr. O'Rourke: No.
Senator Maltais: Sunwing is one example.
Mr. O'Rourke: Sunwing and Porter are part of another group, the Air Transport Association of Canada. Five years ago, our members decided to establish an association to better meet the needs of major carriers. Our four members are Air Canada, Air Transat, Jazz and WestJet.
Senator Maltais: Did those four major carriers join forces in order to provide a better service, or did the others simply establish an association, without undermining them —
Mr. O'Rourke: I was not in this position at the time, but as I understand it, the four members of our council wanted to create an association to better serve their interests.
Senator Maltais: I completely agree with you. Those four carriers provide high-quality service in Canada. However, I do not understand why the other companies are not part of your council. All you have to do is use their services to understand what I mean. If anyone is wondering — After using those companies, you will come back to the four major carriers, as the other companies do not provide the same level of service at all.
Mr. Rheault, when you bought regional companies — including Air Canada — across Canada, and not only in Quebec, you had no official language obligation. The company you acquired did not have an obligation to provide bilingual services.
Mr. Rheault: That obligation came later.
Senator Maltais: But you did not have the obligation in the beginning.
Ms. Sénécal: In August 2000, the act was amended to define a clear obligation for Air Canada and its subsidiaries. At that time, subsidiaries such as Air Nova and Air Alliance were not causing any problems, but in the case of Air Ontario and Air BC — At the time, we did not have a 100-per-cent ownership of those companies, and they did not fit the definition of a subsidiary. They eventually became wholly owned subsidiaries through the merger with Canadian Regional Airlines — which had no bilingualism requirement aside from the one set out in the Canadian Aviation Regulations provision I cited — and their regional company, which was practically unilingual English. We merged with all the regional carriers, and that diluted our pool of bilingual employees. We had to deal with that and provide language and maintenance courses. French cannot be learned in a few lessons; it has to be practiced. Our merger with Canadian Regional Airlines diluted our pool.
Senator Maltais: It is all integrated now.
Ms. Sénécal: Exactly. It is all done.
Senator Chaput: As you probably know, I am the sponsor of Bill S-205. This is the third time the bill has been introduced in the Senate. The second time, it was amended to reflect some concerns that had been raised. That is why it is important to hold a public debate on this issue today.
I want to thank you for being here, for your presentations and for sharing your concerns with the honourable senators. You have my sincerest thanks. The committee should know about any impacts that could negatively affect your operations. It is people like you who can provide our committee with that information.
Madam Chair, my first question is for Mr. Gooch, from the Canadian Airports Council, but Mr. O'Rourke may also want to comment if this applies to his situation.
I know very little about the Canadian Airports Council and the National Airlines Council of Canada. I have learned that the Canadian Airports Council represents 48 airports, 26 of which are considered to be federal. Out of those 26 federal airports, 20 are affected by Bill S-205. Of those 20 airports affected by Bill S-205, 16 are already designated bilingual. The legislation will not change much in how those 16 airports operate, as they are already designated bilingual and are subject to the Official Languages Act. The remaining four non-designated federal airports will be affected more strongly and directly by Bill S-205. They are: Thunder Bay, Ontario; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; London, Ontario; and Saint John, New Brunswick. Thank you for appearing, as we want to know what the impacts will be. Currently, four federal airports that are not designated bilingual will be directly affected by Bill S-205.
Mr. Gooch and Mr. O'Rourke, I would like to know whether your councils have established a plan or guidelines concerning the availability of services in Canada's both official languages. Do you have a plan or guidelines for those airports? Or are you letting every airport or airline implement its own measures? Are they independent? Do you provide them with some sort of a guide?
[English]
Mr. Gooch: As a trade association, our role is to work on behalf of our members in representing common views and consensus positions with the federal government, so we don't have the other direction of that relationship. We don't tell our members how they should behave. They tell us how to represent their interests going forward.
As I said, this has not been an issue that has been identified as a challenge for the airports that we have in our membership, and so it hasn't been an area we've been involved in for the last several years.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Is this something you have already discussed with your members? Has the issue of services in both official languages been discussed?
[English]
Mr. Gooch: It has, but in preparing for this presentation, I realized there isn't anybody at the organization today who was around when it was discussed last. There was some work on this in 2009. There were some moves within government departments to clarify the language requirements on airports, and there was some back and forth between government and our membership at that time. I wasn't involved in that level of work, so I'm not privy to what that entailed.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Each airport or airline implements its own measures.
Mr. O'Rourke: As a trade association, we do not meddle in our members' operations.
Senator Chaput: I understand.
Mr. O'Rourke: As to your first point, I would like everyone to be a bit more aware of what our council does, and we are working on it.
Your third question was whether we have held discussions within the council, right?
Senator Chaput: Yes.
Mr. O'Rourke: Yes, but again, those discussions have been very limited. I would not say that there is a grey area there, but the issue has more to do with customer service. Therefore, as an association, we do not often get involved in the matter.
Senator Chaput: Do you collaborate or maintain relations with the Department of Transportation?
Mr. O'Rourke: Absolutely; we cooperate very well.
Senator Chaput: And do you cooperate with the Department of Transport?
[English]
Mr. Gooch, do you have means of collaboration?
[Translation]
Mr. Gooch: Absolutely. We work very well with Transport Canada.
Senator Chaput: Do you discuss the offer of services in both languages? Does that cooperation include guidelines and suggestions, or is that not discussed because it is another issue?
Mr. O'Rourke: We have very specific regulation that applies to air carriers. It is regulation that has been cited on a few occasions and which comes from Transport Canada. I will not tell you that we discuss it every day, but that regulation exists.
Senator Chaput: Madam Chair, may I ask another question?
The Chair: Yes, of course.
Senator Chaput: I would also like to speak again during the second round.
My question is addressed to the Regina Airport Authority. In my reading this week I learned that your airport has just been designated bilingual and that you did not have that designation last year. My notes were different. However I saw on the website that you are now designated bilingual. Is that the case?
[English]
Mr. Graham: First of all, let me say, honourable senator, that I have been in this position as president and CEO of the airport for eight weeks. I'm going to give you the best answer I can under the circumstances.
It's my understanding, and has been, that when our passenger load crossed the million-person mark back in around 2008, we began to operate to the rules set out.
Some of those rules in any airport take some time to transition to. Universal signage has been very helpful, especially in a new culturally diversified southern Saskatchewan economy, where we have lists of many languages that we cater to and monitor who, within our airport, speaks those languages. We can serve more than a dozen languages, should the question come up, and ensure that the services that are provided are good for them.
With regard to the Official Languages Act, as it's written, we have been very active to ensure our signage for issues of safety, security and the well-being of our travelling public for many more than just the past year or two. I would say, as a frequent traveller through that airport for the last 10-plus years, I've seen a transition that has happened over the last 5 years of considerable might and intent.
I don't know exactly when we were classified as such, but we have been preparing and responding in a way that serves the passengers in both official languages for some years.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I appreciate what you have just said and the fact that you have only been in your position for a brief time. What are you going to do differently now that you have the official bilingual designation? In doing a little research, one learns that in 2013-14 the Commissioner of Official Languages received complaints about your airport, which did not have the bilingual designation at the time. Complaints were filed about the website according to which translations were being done by Google Translate, and thus the quality left a lot to be desired. Complaints also mentioned screens, ads and displays. Certain complaints were filed in this regard with the commissioner.
Perhaps this is not the right time to ask you since you have just taken up your position, but I would like to know if you intend to develop an action plan so that the Regina Airport will really meet their requirements of the Official Languages Act. Do you intend to prepare an action plan?
[English]
Mr. Graham: Thank you for the question, Senator Chaput. I can say that since I walked into the job, it became apparent to me in the first couple of weeks that there were a couple of complaints that needed quick action. It was my view that we needed to ensure that we address them swiftly. I instructed our team to do so, and I guess it was late last week and the week prior, I was in discussions with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, indicating the specifics of our action plan with regard to those complaints to ensure that everything was done to their complete satisfaction and reported that, in the next couple of weeks, the minor signage complaints will be corrected. Everything is in place. The translations have been confirmed, are correct.
The bigger task of transferring from Google Translate, I've got four sons that are in French immersion, and one that lives in Montreal has assured me that there is a better way.
Come November 15, we have committed to have completed a fully bilingual website for all matters of safety, security and well-being of our public, all matters in that regard. That will be complete, and the office is, as I understand, satisfied with that.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Sir, I would not only like to thank you but also to congratulate you. You have only been there for eight weeks and not eight months. I thank you and I congratulate you.
If I had one suggestion to make to you it would be to take the time to meet with the Fransaskois associations that represent the francophones and francophiles of Saskatchewan, to sit down with them and discuss their concerns. I think that like me they would be astounded to see what you have already done since you have taken up your position. Thank you very much.
Senator McIntyre: I thank all of you for being here today. I would like to draw your attention to a sword of Damocles that is hanging over all of your heads, and that is Commissioner Fraser. As you know, over the past few months this Senate committee has heard many witnesses, including the Commissioner of Official Languages, in the course of its study of Bill S-205. In his testimony Commissioner Fraser seemed very concerned by the airport authorities and their linguistic obligations under the Official Languages Act.
That said, in his 2009-10 report the commissioner said the following, and I quote:
Airport authorities do not all understand, interpret or discharge their linguistic obligations in the same way.
The commissioner also said:
. . . governance issues cause almost all the airport authorities to give the provisions of the Official Languages Act a more limited scope than the Canadian government did when it was managing Canada's major airports prior to the 1990s.
The commissioner feels that respect for the principle of official language equality declined when the airports were given over to the management of the airport authorities in the early 1990s. And may I add that year after year, airport authorities are the subject of many complaints submitted to Commissioner Fraser.
I would like to hear your comments. Mr. Rheault, let's begin with you.
Mr. Rheault: I would direct the question to Mr. Gooch, because the comment concerned airport authorities and not Air Canada, which is not an airport authority. I would simply mention that, in the course of the study that was done in 2008-09, Air Canada obtained the best result when compared to airport authorities or other federal agencies providing services in airports under federal jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. Gooch: I'll respond. Mr. Fraser is entitled to his opinions. Our members are responsive to the passengers that fly through their facilities. Based on the feedback we're receiving from the travelling public, our members are not under the impression that there's an issue with language services in the airports today. Airports are constantly looking at ways to improve their customer service overall, including to passengers with a diverse set of language needs. We have travellers travelling through our airport from all the over the world, and there are many demands for language services in languages other than the dominant language of the community they're in.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: According to the commissioner, what is really worrisome is that not only do the airport authorities not understand, but they do not interpret nor discharge their linguistic responsibilities in the same way. In other words, some meet them a certain way, whereas others fulfil them in another way.
I must say that that is quite worrying, especially when one hears the Official Languages Commissioner testify to such things before our committee. If I understood correctly, you are telling us that since the release of his annual report for 2009-10, there have been a lot of improvements in that regard, is that correct?
[English]
Mr. Gooch: I'm suggesting that perhaps our members do not share Mr. Fraser's opinion. It's not surprising to me that our members would respond to their passengers in different ways throughout the country. We live in a very large country. There are many communities implicated by these proposed changes that do not have much of a population in the other official language. The feedback we've received, even from some of the larger communities that do have significant bilingual populations, is that even sourcing staff in these communities can be a challenge.
Our members are locally managed. Our airports are locally managed, and they do the best in their ability to serve their community in the manner appropriate.
[Translation]
The Chair: Would someone like to add a comment to Senator McIntyre's question?
[English]
Ms. Pasher: I wanted to note that if you take just the diversity across the country, for example, if you were to take an airport like St. John's in Newfoundland and Labrador, which serves about over a million passengers a year, they don't have a big French-speaking population. It is a challenge to find people to work at, let's say, the restaurant or Tim Hortons and be bilingual. It's also a challenge for cab companies, where a lot of them would speak Polish. It is a concern. I guess it is a challenge across the country to have the same level of service when your population doesn't have the same language.
Senator McIntyre: But certainly finding bilingual employees should not be a major problem, as far as I'm concerned. There are a lot of bilingual people in this country.
Ms. Pasher: Yes. It's a challenge, and it would be a challenge in Newfoundland and Labrador — it's actually a challenge to find workers in general to work at some of these entry-level, front-line service jobs in customer service. It's an added challenge to find those who are bilingual.
I don't know if anyone else shares that thought.
[Translation]
Mr. Rheault: As to Ms. Pasher's point, that is indeed a challenge in certain markets to find bilingual staff. It is a challenge that the airports and airline companies share. We always prefer to hire bilingual people, but in some markets, we note that it is very difficult. Sometimes we are unable to find bilingual employees. And so, because we have to provide service, we hire bilingual employees.
Ms. Sénécal: Moreover, Mr. Fraser emphasized this problem before us when he testified. In certain regions, it is difficult to find bilingual personnel. That is also the case for the entire government apparatus which also has the obligation of providing services in both official languages. Moreover, in the case of airline companies, for onboard personnel, there are often some physical requirements. Ms. Pasher was talking about the entry posts. There are physical requirements for airline stewards such as having excellent vision. You also have to be willing to work on variable schedules and adopt the lifestyle that the job comes with and this does not suit everyone.
Senator McIntyre: In listening to your testimony, it seems to me that you all work in an individual way. Does it ever happen that you also work in a collective fashion?
Ms. Sénécal: Yes.
Senator McIntyre: In order to improve the situation regarding official languages and airport authorities.
Ms. Sénécal: The obligations are imposed individually to each federal institution under the law. The Treasury Board provides us with certain instructions. In fact, it is the main architect when it comes to the law, in reality. With regard to airport authorities, we work with them on occasion when there are common services or spaces involved, because for each airport, there is an Air Carrier's Council who can participate in some aspects and discuss certain points, but each entity remains an individual entity.
Mr. Rheault: I would like to add that in each airport where we operate, we cooperate with airport authority to ensure better client service. Whether it is a client of the airline company or of the airport, it is the same client. And so we try to give the best possible service. Of course there are users' councils that are set up to examine all of that. Since there are a lot of common service spaces, these topics are raised and solutions are discussed and put in place in cooperation with all of the stakeholders.
Ms. Sénécal: A concrete example of this are the announcements that are made. Each carrier does not have a microphone at the desk to make announcements. This goes through the airport authority. We work with the authority to make the announcements on the public address system. The airport authority also controls the flight display boards. We ensure jointly with the authority that that is done in both languages when demand is significant.
Mr. Rheault: Often, in airports, the registration desks are shared by all of the airline companies and so obviously there is cooperative work with the airport authority concerning the placement of the kiosk and its content.
Senator Poirier: I thank all of you for being here tonight. All of this is very interesting.
[English]
I'm from New Brunswick. As in New Brunswick, you have a responsibility to offer services in both official languages. As in New Brunswick, that does not mean that all employees need to be bilingual. It means that the service has to be there. If I hear you right, you are already offering, you're telling us, that bilingual service to answer to the needs of your clients that are out there, and some of you have even mentioned with very few complaints.
Some of the concerns that I've heard that you're talking about on Bill S-205 are the financial burden, not knowing what would be the cost of implementing some of these, and also one of the major ones we're hearing is the availability of the bilingual manpower that you would need to be able to answer to that need.
Those are some of the concerns that I've heard that you have mentioned in regard to Bill S-205.
Do you see any strong points in Bill S-205 that could help you? If there are any changes that you would see that you could recommend to Bill S-205 that would answer your needs better, what would they be? My question is open to anyone who would like to answer.
Mr. Gooch: If I may, senator, one of the challenges we've identified in looking through Bill S-205 is this characterization of equal quality. When I hear "equal quality," I think of a standard that, in my mind, would be almost impossible to meet anywhere in the country in any type of organization. There are very few individuals who master both languages very well, and equality of service, without some clarification on what that means, sounds like a difficult standard to meet. I think the further you go away from a bilingual population, the harder it would be.
As we said in our notes, in terms of the definition of equal quality and some of the other areas, we have a lot of unanswered questions. Perhaps there could be some clarification about what is meant in that area.
Mr. O'Rourke: We also share the uncertainty of what that could mean. What our position boils down to is that in our airlines, customer service is a high priority. It makes sense from a business perspective to offer services in the language that the customer wants. The concern with this bill is that the objective is fantastic, but, to justify the resources, we would just like that there be a real, measurable need.
You asked what we like about the bill. I'm not sure. What we don't like is the fact that it changes the criteria. I don't want to say "arbitrarily," but I can't think of a better word. It's that additional airports that will be added without the comfort that airlines and airports need to say, "Yes, this makes sense. We're on board completely with this."
Ms. Pasher: I'd like to follow up on that as well. I really think that when we look at airports and when we classify them based on passenger traffic, it's really helpful to show the need. We're talking about Charlottetown and Prince Edward Island and Saint John, which have 300,000 passengers a year, in comparison to some of these airports with over 1 million. It's a massive difference.
I'd just like you to understand that our airports really struggle financially. When you talked about there being 20 affected of the 26 NAS airports, and we're really only talking about four more, our industry looks at airports and our NAS airports and says if you reach 500,000 passenger traffic threshold annually, you're getting to a level where you can be self-sufficient. Financially, you can afford your own infrastructure, borrow the money and make things work. When you're under the 500,000-passenger mark, it is a significant challenge. Our airport association recognizes that there's a difference between an airport that's under the 500,000-passenger mark and one above the 500,000-passenger mark. I think that comes to services and resources and what you can afford. Whether you're operating an airport in Charlottetown or, let's say Moncton, which is double the size, you still have the same bricks and mortar. You still have to deliver the same safety management system and security management system and all hosts of regulations. I think we need to recognize that our smaller National Airports System airports have significant constraints in financial resources, and it needs to be considered.
Mr. Gooch: One additional point for follow-up: There has been discussion about it only affecting a very limited number of airports. I'm not an attorney, and we haven't had a proper legal scrub, but we have had some concerns that this actually applied to more than just four airports, in particular, the reference to an equal quality. There is some concern that a new standard would be set that would impact more than just the individual airports you've named. That is a concern of ours as well. It is reassuring to hear that the intent is perhaps just to expand the scope of an existing level of standard to additional airports, but that was not our initial reading of this proposed legislation.
Mr. Graham: In the same tone as Mr. Gooch has just shared, the Regina International Airport and the Regina Airport Authority is already a federal reporting institution under the Official Languages Act. My comments earlier were touching on the system that is in place can work. It can meet the needs of our travelling public well. If you look at the complaints we have received, as I spoke to earlier, we are addressing them and are committed to addressing them swiftly. I think it just makes the system work all that much better. With new technologies and everything from cafeteria menus where displays now can be changed at a moment's notice, I think technology is aiding and assisting the airports to do a very good job.
But as Ms. Pasher pointed out, there are some smaller airports and there are some larger airports, and there are some in between. I'd classify Regina as somewhere in between. Notwithstanding what Ms. Pasher shared, smaller airports' access to money to address some of these changes is difficult. We in a medium-sized airport share a similar concern. We have to effectively tax our passengers for airport improvement fees, and every cost that we have, which we carefully consider, is one we have to pass on.
In the context of the question the senator has posed, I would say that we do have an Official Languages Act and regulation. When applied well, it is effective. As I spoke to earlier, my concerns for a reporting federal institution, as we are, are under proposed subsections 23.1(1) and 23.1(2).
I think there are ways to garner input on how successful you are. We have already determined, I might add, Senator Chaput, who the six or seven local francophone associations are. I can't understand all of their websites, but we're going to get to the bottom of it and make sure we have contact and feedback in our airport on what we're doing.
Again, I think those are things that that we can do at our airport to have a very positive experience. I look forward to few concerns being raised at all. Presently there have been very few.
Senator Poirier: This question is for Mr. Graham in Regina. I know you have gone through a transition to be bilingual, and I also realize you have been there for only eight weeks, so maybe you wouldn't have all the answers. I thought I would take a chance and ask.
I was curious, because we did talk about financial cost and different things, if you could share with us the cost of the transition to becoming a bilingual airport.
Mr. Graham: I'm afraid I don't have the number at my disposal at this point.
Senator Poirier: Is that something you could supply to the clerk and the committee?
Mr. Graham: Yes, I certainly could. I might add that unilingual signage has been important to us, too, because of the increased cultural diversity in southern Saskatchewan. There were a great many drivers for the changes we undertook.
I would be happy to find that number and provide it to you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for your presentations. I apologize I wasn't here earlier, but I commit to you that I will read your presentations. I was in another committee.
I'm going to come to this in a very different way, and I want you to take it the way I'm saying it and not think that I'm being rude. That's not my nature.
When I listen to you, I see you are very service-oriented, and I laud you for that, but if you could turn this around and say that we as a committee, what should Canada look like? Who are we? We are a country with the First Peoples, and we have two languages. How do we reflect that?
I come from B.C. It's easy for us from B.C. to say that we don't need French because it's Chinese and Punjabi. I could hear someone saying we should look at the cultural diversity.
I'm asking you, as leaders in your field and where you are, to come to this committee and say, "Look, our goals are the same. We want to serve customers. You want to serve customers. We want to serve Canada." How could we make it possible to come and say at Charlottetown, "We can't do all this, but we could start by having this"?
For me, what's really important is that we continue to portray our bilingual nature. I say to people that even though I come from B.C., there are huge lineups for French immersion. There are French immigrants coming to B.C. There is another growing group of people who are speaking French, so we can't just look at people who were born with French.
For us, when Commissioner Fraser speaks, it's really important. It's not just another opinion. It's the opinion of the Commissioner of Official Languages as to what the official-language picture should look like.
I'm going on for a few minutes, but what I'm saying to you is as someone who has had the privilege to come to this country. I've been here for 40 years. I hear the arguments always being made that we don't have enough money. We have to do this. We have to do that.
Our job is to see what Canada could look like and to ensure that our bilingual nature is reflected in the next 100 years.
I ask each of you to think outside the box and say what could your service or your airport do to make sure that our bilingual nature stays.
I can start with you, Mr. Rheault.
Mr. Rheault: It's a very good question. I would answer that you have to look at all the commitments we can make. For instance, at Air Canada, we commit a lot of resources to training employees, to implement that culture of bilingualism. Each new employee receives training in both official languages. We have the online module that was developed, and each employee has to look at that.
I understand that we should make efforts to implement bilingual culture and offer services to best serve our clients, but we also have to keep in mind that sometimes we face limited resources. It's not a question of willingness or dedication or commitment from the airline and maybe the airport; it's that you cannot find the number of employees to provide the services.
Yes, we make efforts to recruit, but sometimes it's not there. I think the best thing we can do is keep working hard on training the employees, fighting for bilingual resources, but we need to keep in mind that in certain communities, it's very tough to recruit bilingual employees.
You mentioned the cost issue on this. This has to be taken into account as well for us and our partners, because at the end of the day, we are also competing to offer services, and we live in the free market where we have competitors. As a company, we have to keep that in mind. That's another factor that we always have to look at.
Mr. O'Rourke: I will be quite candid. When you bring up the issue of costs, it can be tricky sometimes because it is a very important objective. The reality is that it is a factor, but again, it's limited resources that come into play.
I'm sure all the airlines of our association would love to have bilingual services everywhere. It's not feasible. I can tell you that customer service is the highest priority, and if that is what it would take to give them a competitive advantage, they would move mountains for that. Besides all the laws that you can pass, there is an inherent incentive from airlines and airports to offer the best service possible. If that means bilingual services, it will happen organically, hopefully.
Mr. Gooch: Thank you for the question. I'm going to nod to some comments that my colleague from Regina made. I think in the future, technology will help us a lot. Google Translate may have its limitations today, but I think we're going to a place where technology will take care of that better than it does today.
Certainly our members are always looking for new tools, particularly tools that help them deliver superior service to their passengers, but there is a balance there in terms of which needs do you respond to. We try and respond to all of the needs of all of our passengers.
I think we have a bright future ahead of us, because I think technology is going to help us a lot.
Ms. Sénécal: There is a saying: What is the quickest way to Beijing? Well, don't start here.
We're in the transportation business, and we're having trouble recruiting bilingual people. Increasing our obligation won't generate more bilingual people. The start should be at the education level. If you have more of those immersion schools and if you have more of the infrastructure for health services, which are basic services, there will be more francophone bilingual personnel and it will be easier for us to recruit. But asking us here in the middle of the chain to find a solution is quite difficult because it starts at the other end.
Senator Jaffer: I may have said it that way and I didn't mean to. I'm a businesswoman, so I understand the issue of costs. Day and night, I know what costs are all about. So I'm not trying to belittle the cost issue, but I just wanted to say we have different leadership roles.
Mr. Gooch, you said something amazing. I use the Air Canada app all the time to get the times and to get information. And part of that, for example with Charlottetown, if you can't have a person, you can have the technology. There is a kiosk you could go to and get all the information in French.
I would like to give you some homework, something you can send back to us. We can't do this because of costs, but we do have the same goals as you wherein we care about our country and we want to reflect its bilingual nature and fabric. This is what we can do now.
I know the sponsor really well and she's not averse to changing the bill. The goal of all of us sitting around the table is to keep our country bilingual.
Ms. Pasher: It's an important goal. I just wanted to follow up on that.
In terms of service at our airport in Charlottetown, we have a visitor information centre, and it's a beautiful, state-of-the-art centre that our province operates. It's only operated on a seasonal basis because about 50 per cent of our traffic is tourists, and we do have bilingual staff. When it isn't staffed, there is a 1-800 number people can call and get tourism information.
While not all of our commissionaires speak French, we have a few who do, so we can always provide some level of service in French. I don't want you to leave here today thinking that because we are a small airport of 300,000 passengers we don't have any service in French. We do, and we try our best to service the needs of — whether it's visitors coming from Quebec or the Magdalen Islands, we offer that service, and we're very proud of that.
Senator Jaffer: Just so you know, I really like Charlottetown. My son goes to learn the bagpipes in Charlottetown, so I know the airport very well. I have tested it, and there are people there who speak French. I just wanted you to see that there are different ways we can provide the solution.
Mr. Graham: If I may just add, I know some discussions on costs have come up. Costs of conversion change with, as Mr. Gooch mentioned, new technologies. New technology is an enabler, and cost can be a real deterrent to progressing in some ways, but at the right time. It doesn't necessarily cost us a whole lot more to add some French on a sign, as a small example. The printing costs, in my experience, haven't gone up considerably, but if you're going in to do some kind of wholesale change to perfectly good — and I'll use the example of signage again — it can be an enormous cost to any institution, including airports.
I just point out that with my age came a little bit of patience that I didn't have in my twenties and thirties. I have learned that that patience can be a good thing. It can enable us — I know in our airport's case — to make some changes that are in the context of the future as we believe it should exist, a bilingual country, without costing us a great deal more. If those changes need to be made anyway, do it right.
My point is that cost can be a deterrent at times if you're trying to wholesale change something that doesn't need to be fixed immediately. I use that word cautiously, but in cases where you need to make a change, there are ways to do it and to do it efficiently.
The Chair: Before we go to the second round, I would like to ask Mr. O'Rourke and Mr. Gooch, perhaps Mr. Graham, a question.
You have indicated that finding bilingual staff is difficult and that it's difficult to find the necessary human resources. Could you indicate to the committee what efforts you have made to contact francophone universities, colleges and high schools that would have graduates of French-speaking or immersion-type programs?
Mr. O'Rourke: As a council, we wouldn't deal with the hiring process of individual members, but it may be something we could explore down the road.
The Chair: Has your council given directives to your communications or human resources people?
Mr. O'Rourke: No, we wouldn't give directives to our members. We are a trade association. We are the voice of the industry. We do advocacy. We wouldn't give directives, especially in the area of hiring practices. It is something that, if we are mandated from our members, maybe we could explore.
Mr. Schmidtke: Similar to Mr. O'Rourke, we wouldn't really be involved in actual hiring practices in the community, but three of our members are sitting to my left, and I'm sure they would be happy to talk to you about what they do.
Mr. Graham: I'll take that hand-off and just say that I think fewer than 15 per cent of our current staff are currently bilingual as we report right now in the Regina Airport Authority. We also monitor on a regular basis, on an annual basis, how many within the whole establishment — all the vendors and service providers — speak French and other languages. We report on that language component, and it's become clear to me that any hiring that we can do where we recognize that the French language and others are of a benefit to the airport is important. Our hiring campaigns that are gearing up for this summer are in fact focusing on multilingual and bilingual, including both official languages of Canada.
We've also reached out to one high school. There are two or three in the city of Regina that graduate high school students, and it's our intent to see where they're going. Are they going on to university? Are they potential hires for summer students? How do we get them in the community? How do we encourage that along? Those are the steps that we've been taking.
Mr. Schmidtke: Because Thunder Bay airport is well below the threshold, I can't tell you that we've actually been recruiting in both official languages, but as I mentioned in my remarks, we are deeply aware of all the linguistic capabilities of the people in our terminal building, and they are always very responsive to help when they can.
To the senator's point about what we are going to look like and what we are going to be, I'm taking that as a cue to take that informal roster and formalize it a little more so we can be more rapidly responsive than we have been in the past.
The Chair: Thank you. That's very encouraging.
[Translation]
Ms. Sénécal, did you want to add something?
Ms. Sénécal: Concerning Air Canada and Jazz, whenever there are recruitment campaigns, we contact francophone associations in the region concerned depending on the assignment base. People can subscribe to our website, where vacant positions are listed. If there is a newsletter for the francophone minority, when it is possible, depending on the recruitment campaign, we publish the notice in that newsletter to attempt to find personnel.
Unfortunately, it has happened several times that despite all of these efforts, very few bilingual people applied. That is why we then had to go to plan B, that is to say hire personnel who did not have all of the linguistic qualifications and give them basic training, and then training to maintain their language competency. Sometimes we have provided basic language training, but the employees never get to speak with a French-speaking person and are never asked for service in French. Despite the active offer these people did not have the opportunity of practicing their French. In those cases we have to do maintenance training.
Senator Chaput: Before asking my last, very brief questions, I would like to repeat that Bill S-205 only applies to federal airports. The bill impacts federal services and only applies to federal airports. There are 20 federal airports that are affected by Bill S-205. Of that number, 16 have already received the bilingual designation. There are only four that are directly affected and they are the smallest ones.
Ms. Pasher, you really made me think, because you said something in your presentation or in one of your replies which I have always preached and still preach. You said this:
[English]
We should not aim to have a one-size-fits-all approach.
[Translation]
We should not forget that, because you are entirely right. That is precisely what "real equality" means. The expression has been defined by the Supreme Court. We have only to look to the Supreme Court definition. "Real equality" means that the service is offered on the basis of the real situation and needs of the community that receives the service.
As an example, the services offered by Prince Edward Island would be different from those offered at the Regina airport. That is real equality; it reflects the situation on the ground.
I would like to tell you how much I appreciate the discussion we are having today. My first objective was the public debate, because this allows us to understand even better the reality of all those who are affected. One of these days, this bill will come back. If I am not the one to bring it back, it will be someone else, because it is based on a real need and it is supported by all of the minority official language communities in Canada.
[English]
And it will come back to haunt us.
[Translation]
In any case, I do not know how, but it will come back, because changes have to be made. This does not mean that it will not be modified. You submitted your concerns, suggestions and thoughts.
My question is addressed to the Charlottetown or Thunder Bay Airport Authority, and it is very simple. What do you do when a unilingual francophone traveller needs a service and requests it? How do you offer him that service? Has that situation ever arisen?
[English]
Mr. Schmidtke: In order of priority, the first thing we do is we see if one of our bilingual employees is on staff and that person helps out. If that fails us, we default to some of the other employees that are available on the floor of the terminal building. Let me use the duration of the last five years; that has been sufficient.
Senator Chaput: Thank you.
Ms. Pasher: Similar to the case in Thunder Bay, when someone is coming through an airport, we also have our Air Canada staff — of which, in Charlottetown, about 40 per cent is bilingual — so we have access to bilingual staff within the terminal. We also have access at our visitor information centre, when they're there. We also have one commissionaire who is bilingual. We don't have a lot of airport staff at such a small airport.
It's interesting, when I was listening to everyone talk about their hiring policies, I'm thinking that we have a few office staff and commissionaires, and everything else is third party; the restaurant, the airlines and the baggage handlers hire their staff, just to give you an idea of all the parties in the airport.
We do service our French-speaking clients with the help of our partners within our terminal that we are able to service them.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My last question is addressed to Air Canada. You have years of experience offering services in both the official languages of Canada. What advice would you give to new federal airports that may one day be designated bilingual? What would be the three most important things?
Mr. Rheault: That is an excellent question. The first piece of advice would be to constantly reiterate the message to employees regarding the importance of offering bilingual service.
The second piece of advice, as we indicated, would be to consult stakeholders in the community in order to find bilingual employees.
Mme Sénécal: Thirdly, if possible, you have to invest in technology. We want to be able to offer equal service. However, employees are human. If your bilingual employee is sick one morning, unfortunately, you are in a difficult position. Technology, like airport kiosks, allows us to standardize service in both official languages equally.
We have several offices in several different provinces and cities. If we face a temporary gap, we can use the telephone, linked to another airport or another office, where a bilingual person can help. Airport authorities are unfortunately local, so they do not have that possibility.
Mr. Rheault: I would add a fourth piece of advice. You have to be optimistic and focus on the progress made and the way in which it was made. It is easy to be negative and to say that the situation is not perfect, that we receive complaints and that there is still much to be done. However, you also have to underscore progress. You have to have a positive approach that recognizes the efforts of all the stakeholders regarding official languages. I feel that aspect is important.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: I want to follow up on the issue of cost. That issue was raised by my colleague, and it was also raised by most if not all of you. I know that your concerns with respect to costs are mainly related to bilingual staff, bilingual work instruments and so on. What about a simple issue such as a bilingual website? Do your airport authorities have a bilingual website? Who has and who hasn't? P.E.I., do you have a bilingual website?
Ms. Pasher: We don't have a bilingual website. Until you're over a million passengers, you are not required to have one. It's something I think we could look at. I don't think it would be hugely cost-prohibitive to do so, so it's a good point.
We don't have a big French population on the Island, but I think it's something we could definitely take into consideration.
Mr. Schmidtke: We do not have one either; we are well below the million threshold.
Senator McIntyre: Okay. Mr. Graham?
Mr. Graham: I would add that, as I mentioned earlier, we are over the million threshold. We have, and I couch this carefully, a bilingual website, using Google Translate. In anticipation of discussions that I initiated with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, we got a quotation for a conversion. That conversion cost on the areas of safety, security and the well-being of the public was about $50,000. We'll be executing on that for November 15 completion or prior, this year.
Ms. Pasher: I take back the cost-prohibitive comment.
Senator McIntyre: Anyone else wish to comment on the website?
Ms. Sénécal: For services, we obviously have a bilingual website. The costs are rather high. It depends on the type of website you have. If your website is static information, it can be a certain cost, not a high cost. You need to update your information. If your website is dynamic, like ours, it is a constant translation. So it's ongoing costs. To make sure you keep equal and high-quality translation requires a lot of resources.
Senator McIntyre: Is it sufficient to have a Google Translate system in place?
Ms. Sénécal: We don't use Google Translate. We have some full staff, some service providers, and we do the translation this way. We don't use Google. We haven't had the opportunity. Although when I do receive a proceeding, let's say in German, I will sometimes use Google Translate to have a general idea of what is being said.
Senator McIntyre: Does anyone else use Google Translate here? No?
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I have been listening to you from the beginning, and I note that you all have the same problem recruiting bilingual personnel, be it at Prince Edward Island or at Air Canada. I do not think a piece of legislation will allow you to find more bilingual people overnight. Honestly, if I tell you you need 100 people more, you are going to ask me to find them for you.
Over the past 10 years, has bilingualism in our airports and among Canada's air carriers improved, or has it deteriorated?
Mr. Rheault: Regarding airline companies, our figures are constantly on the upswing, but the fact remains that it is a challenge. It is a challenge to offer service in both official languages, particularly in certain areas of the country. As you say, while making legislative changes, we have to remain aware of that demographic reality.
[English]
Mr. Gooch: I haven't been with the organization for 10 years, but as a traveller over the last 10 years, I believe it has. Not to sound like a broken record, but technology has brought us a long way.
We're getting to a place where you don't even see a human being. You see a human being in limited steps on your way between your home and your airport. We now have common use technology throughout the country for check-in, so that you're no longer waiting in line necessarily at a counter to see a human being; you're doing a check-in online. That's enabled airports and our partners in the air carrier community to accidentally, if you will, provide a much higher level of service in both official languages, because it's being done by technology. You're not reliant on whether or not that individual at the counter has bilingual skills. I believe it has.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: To conclude, I think that future technology will be much more useful to you and will meet Senator Chaput's objectives for Bill S-205 over time. Thank you.
The Chair: On behalf of all of the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, I want to thank all of the witnesses here very sincerely for their presence and their participation. We have had a very interesting frank and open discussion. I know that the bilingual nature of our country is important to you, just as it is to all of us. French and English are the two official languages of our country, and as a committee, we want Canada to reflect that Canadian societal reality.
Thank you very much to all of you.
(The committee adjourned.)