Bill C-29 (Historical)

Air Canada and Its Affiliates Act

An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act

This enactment extends the application of the Official Languages Act to certain affiliates of Air Canada and deems the articles of ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. to include provisions respecting the location of its head office and the right of persons to communicate with that corporation in both official languages.

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, who sits with me on the official languages committee and comes from the same province as I do. I find comments like those of the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell a bit absurd. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. As the member for Acadie—Bathurst put it so well, it is unacceptable that a chair would decide not to listen to witnesses because he does not feel like listening to them.

We must show respect. We have been elected by the Canadian people. Those who follow the news regularly may notice that it is not always easy to keep people's respect for the members of Parliament. One must work hard for that. It is gestures like the one the Conservative chair of the committee made that make people wonder about the work we do here in Ottawa. But most of us are trying to make things go forward. It is always a minority that gives the majority a bad name.

But what I wanted to say is that the only thing that is not found in the title of the bill is the fact that it relates to official languages. Maybe that should have been mentioned because that can be confusing. People think that since the bill is about Air Canada, it is about transportation. In fact, the bill is concerned with transportation because it relates to Air Canada, but it is about official languages.

It is hard to conceive that the minister would want to send the bill to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities since it should be sent to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

How does the member for Acadie—Bathurst see the situation? Is there any respect in this House when the Conservatives do not want the Standing Committee on Official Languages to operate?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, what is important today is Bill C-29, which ensures that Air Canada respects the official languages. Just because the company changes, that does not mean Air Canada does not have to assume its responsibilities any more.

But let us go back to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. This is where we have to be very clear. Why is the government saying that it had nothing to do with the decision made by the chair? Why is it supporting this decision then? This means that it agreed—agreed with the fact that the chair was preventing the committee from sitting.

The chairman said that it was due to partisanship. If anybody showed any partisanship, it was the chair himself. The abolition of the court challenges program was challenged across the country, everywhere we went. The Conservative MPs know it because they came with us on this trip, except for the chairman who was not there. They knew it. There were the ones who showed partisanship. They cancelled the Standing Committee on Official Languages meeting because they did not want to hear what the witnesses had to say. It is quite simple. This is what they wanted. They did not want to hear the truth. The Conservative government is hurting our people; it is hurting the whole francophone community.

I hope that we can hear the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages explain to us later, maybe, how she is helping us in that regard. She should be ashamed of herself for not standing up to the Prime Minister and telling him that what he is doing to our francophone communities is not acceptable. I am looking forward to hear what the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages will say.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst who has a long and rich experience as a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Let us take the example of a bill such as this one that deals with Air Canada. Problems arise in far too many instances with regards to services provided, or that should be provided, in French or that are requested in French in the context of air travel.

How can we ensure, through the House and the work of parliamentarians, that we will come up with an efficient bill that will offer a solution to the problems that are too often reported, namely that the French fact is not respected in air transportation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Gatineau. I do hope that, in the next few days, the government will see the light at the end of the tunnel. What is going on in Parliament is not normal in a democracy. I explained very clearly a moment ago that denying citizens the right to express themselves before Parliament is an assault on democracy. It can be called nothing else. It wounds democracy.

The four whips will convene tomorrow morning. We will meet to discuss the situation. Let us hope the government revises its position and acknowledges that these things are simply not done. A chair cannot simply decide that he does not agree with the committee's agenda. That is not done in a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules and he needs to recognize that.

The Conservatives say they were elected to be the government. That is true, but it is a minority government. We need to work together. For that to happen, it needs to let the committee do its work. It was working well. Right up until the last minute, even after the committee was shut down, they were saying how it was doing great work. Unbelievable! The committee does great work but it is still shut down. That is unacceptable.

I trust a reasonable decision will be taken. The government will need to think about things. The ball is in its court. Otherwise, we will have to change the rules of the House. If it refuses to name another chair, we will need new standing orders. The rules will change. Is that what the government wants? That is what will happen. If that is the road it wishes to embark on, we will change the rules. It must never forget that it is a minority and not a majority government.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, as Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, I am proud to present, together with my colleague, this bill to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which will ensure respect for the linguistic rights of Canadians.

This is another example of our government's commitment to the official languages and linguistic duality. Our government is strongly committed to promoting both official languages. We believe that linguistic duality is a fundamental aspect of our identity. It is an economic, social and cultural asset for Canadian society and for Canada on the international scene.

Our new government has signed service and education agreements with the provinces and territories totalling $1.18 billion over four years. Dozens of other funding agreements with official languages community groups and organizations have been signed as well.

In addition, in the 2007 budget, the new government of Canada also increased funding for official languages minority communities by providing an additional $30 million over two years. These monies will fund cultural and extracurricular activities as well as community centres. The $30 million is in addition to $642 million over five years allocated by the Action Plan for Official Languages, which seeks to promote and develop the official languages in Canada.

We have proven, and our actions will continue to prove, that respect for the Official Languages Act in every department, including Transport Canada, is a priority for us.

I would like to present a brief history of Air Canada in order to support the proposed amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Air Canada, as we know it today, was established in 1937 by legislation whose purpose was to create a national airline for Canada, the Trans-Canada Air Lines.

During the second world war, Trans-Canada Airlines was charged with carrying Canadian armed forces and Canadian government officials and diplomatic dispatches regarding urgent war business over the Atlantic Ocean between Canada and the British Isles. What began as an urgent war measure became the springboard for Trans-Canada Airlines' expansion into the international commercial air market.

Trans-Canada Airlines was renamed Air Canada through an act of Parliament on January 1, 1965. This change reflected its changed status from one of a national air transportation, cargo and mail service carrier to one of a Canadian based international commercial airline. Consideration was also given to the fact that being bilingual, the name Air Canada better reflected Canada's two official languages.

Throughout its history, Air Canada has shown its will to correctly reflect Canadian linguistic duality. For example, as early as 1963, Air Canada set up an internal committee on bilingualism to examine its policies and practices and recommend corporate improvements.

In 1968, more than 34% of all Air Canada employees, including 57% in Quebec, were classified as bilingual. In 1969, when the Official Languages Act was passed, Air Canada made sure that its corporate policies were in line with official languages requirements, just like other federal institutions.

As members will recall, on two occasions, the Government of Canada imposed official languages requirements on Air Canada through the Air Canada Public Participation Act in order to ensure the continued protection of the linguistic rights of Canadians. Full obligations under the Official Languages Act were imposed on Air Canada, once when privatization occurred in 1988-89, and again in 2000 when Air Canada purchased Canadian Airlines International.

In 2000, these obligations were extended to require that Air Canada make sure that its subsidiaries that provide air services serve their clients in both official languages.

In 2002, in response to a report from the Standing Committee on Official Languages, Air Canada tabled its Linguistic Action Plan 2001-2010, in which it renewed its ongoing commitment to both official languages and put forward a 10-year plan describing how it intended to further that goal. The action plan was updated in 2004.

Furthermore, on November 25, 2004, an Air Canada senior executive appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages. He said to the committee that during the restructuring process of Air Canada, when the company had to identify $2 billion in savings, only three budgets had not been reduced: safety, security and official languages.

Air Canada showed on a number of occasions that it was willing to meet its responsibilities when it comes to official languages.

However, on October 1, 2004, as part of its corporate business plan, Air Canada made major changes to its corporate structure aimed at maximizing efficiency and boosting investment. Air Canada then created independent trading units under a new parent company, ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. Therefore, the Air Canada Public Participation Act now applies to only one part of Air Canada.

The former internal divisions and subsidiaries of Air Canada, including Jazz, have now become independent companies and are not subject to the official languages obligations set out in the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

In response to Canadians, Air Canada's employees and the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the Government of Canada committed to introduce legislation to ensure that there would be no erosion of Air Canada's official languages act and headquarters location obligations as a result of its corporate restructuring.

Since then, Air Canada has showed its intention to keep up its efforts and initiatives to respect and improve the quality of its services in both official languages. Last November, at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, a senior executive presented Air Canada's hiring policy which focuses on hiring bilingual candidates. The company has also transferred a good many flight attendants in an effort to increase the bilingualism ratio.

This is why I will gladly support this bill before the House. The House intends to maintain this commitment and to respect the obligation it has under the Air Canada Public Participation Act to give Air Canada's employees the right to work in the language of their choice. It will also ensure that the linguistic rights of Canadians are preserved as far as the services offered by this company are concerned. This bill will help the company keep contributing to the social fabric of Canada and to play its role as an ambassador of Canadian values abroad in the years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for her speech on Bill C-29.

I would like to know, if possible, why a government that supports official languages and prides itself on bringing Bill C-29, which is in fact the continuation of Bill C-47, back to the House has taken so much time to do so—from October to this week—and has also refused to designate a chair for the official languages committee. Is it because it was not important?

How many times have I reminded the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons of the importance of Bill C-29?

Maybe she could also clarify what the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell meant when he said that I misled the House about the Standing Committee on Official Languages. He seemed to say that we are the ones who cancelled the hearing. Where was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages two minutes before the hearing started, when the clerk said that the committee hearing was cancelled?

That evening, on the five o'clock news with Don Newman, we learned that the committee had been shut down for being too partisan. The member has no respect for the members of the committee. Can you imagine? How has the simple examination of the court challenges program become a partisan issue? Where does the minister, who is a francophone, stand as far as the francophones of the country are concerned? I would also like to hear her comments about Air Canada and the other companies it may buy.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said many times in this House, I have a great deal of respect for the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages and for all my Conservative colleagues sitting on this committee.

The committee has done an excellent job, most notably the tour of the country, from coast to coast. Our colleagues were there, including my parliamentary secretary. A phenomenal job has been done. The committee tabled a report about two weeks ago. It contains 39 recommendations that we will examine. Of course, we will respond within the required 120 days.

I also have a lot of respect for my colleague who is here in this House and with whom I had the opportunity of making announcements regarding minority communities, notably for L'écho d'un peuple. For instance, we announced $195,000 in funding for this extraordinary show intended for the Francophonie and all Canadians.

More recently, the Festival franco-ontarien received $130,000 to help the development of francophone communities throughout the country.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the minister, who is responsible for official languages.

Earlier, we heard her very disappointing answer regarding the way that the Standing Committee on Official Languages was put on standby—let us hope that it will not be for too long. We have serious doubts when we hear the minister.

The minister says that she is giving $30 million to the francophone communities outside Quebec. She should know that, in 1996, the Franco-Saskatchewaners were asking for $22 million for themselves alone, simply to be able to operate for a year. The principle of redress has yet to be implemented at the federal level, even if studies by Roger Bernard, from the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française, were referring to it more than 15 years ago. It is completely lamentable to hear that kind of explanation of how the government highlights the official languages. Bill C-29 is another example. Following the recommendation of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the bill must be sent to the Standing Committee on Official Languages to be looked at.

How will she do it, with all that rhetoric that shows her inconsistency in regard to the recommendations made by knowledgeable people?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, Bloc members would have been better to support Bill S-3 in the fall of 2005. I believe it is through this action that they could have shown French-speaking communities outside Quebec that they were willing to support them. Now, the member refers to claims dating back to 1993--

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

To 1996.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

He refers to claims dating back to 1996 and I would invite him to express his griefs to the government that was in office at the time.

For our part, we announced an additional $30 million for communities and we intend to ensure that these $30 million are well spent to promote the Canadian francophonie.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat mystifying to hear the minister make these kinds of remarks. First of all, let us set the facts straight. We are no longer talking about the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages—which is unfortunate—we are talking about the former chair of official languages because of his actions and the lack of respect he has shown towards language communities in Canada.

However, the minister says she is proud that her government has decided to meet with these communities. There is however a reality, which is that the then chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages did not take the time to travel to the different regions of the country to meet with these communities and get a sense of the problem. This might have been an important and necessary thing to do in order to better identify the issues down the road.

The big issue under debate just happened to be the court challenges program. Several months later, the government, by way of the chair, cancelled the court challenges program, cancelled the Standing Committee on Official Languages and now they try to tell us they care about official languages. In my opinion, the minister should take back which she said and say the exact opposite.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages has one minute to answer the question.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that will be enough to tell my colleague from the opposition that those who showed disrespect to minority communities are the Liberals and the members of the NDP who voted against our budget measures for the country's minority communities. They voted against investing $30 million in our youth and against money for the construction of community centres.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

That is a Liberal project.