Evidence of meeting #20 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was languages.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We are very pleased this morning to have the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport.
Welcome, Mr. Cannon.
We'll proceed as follows: the minister will speak for seven to 10 minutes, after which the members will ask questions.
You may begin when you are ready, minister.
November 2nd, 2006 / 9:05 a.m.
Pontiac Québec
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Transport
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, colleagues and committee members, for your kind invitation.
With me this morning are Mr. Jacques Pigeon, General Counsel of the Department of Transport, and Ms. Brigita Gravitis-Beck, Director General of Air Policy. If the questions become a little more technical, you'll understand if I ask these people to give you the answer.
Mr. Chairman, once again, thank you very much for your invitation and also for allowing me to be here this morning. I want to take the opportunity to thank you personally, and on behalf of Minister Verner, for your efforts, yours and those of committee members, in the preparation of the standing committee's report on the status of language obligations at Air Canada.
It is indeed my pleasure and privilege to speak to you today on the Government Response to the First Report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages and on the matter of Bill C-29, which seeks to introduce amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
As members of this committee are well aware, Air Canada's corporate restructuring, while it was under bankruptcy protection for an 18-month period between 2003 and 2004, resulted in changes to the scope of application of the Air Canada Public Participation Act vis-à-vis Air Canada and its newly created affiliates. In particular, the application of the Official Languages Act was reduced given a number of significant changes in the corporate structure of the airline company.
The previous government attempted to address this issue with the introduction of Bill C-47. This bill, you'll recall, would have restored language obligations at Air Canada's affiliates to what existed prior to the restructuring. However, this bill only made it as far as the committee stage in the House of Commons, as the bill died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued for the election call in November 2005.
On June 15 of this year, members of this committee issued a report entitled “Application of the Official Languages Act to ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. following the restructuring of Air Canada”. I will refrain from going through the report at length, as I am sure you are even more familiar with the contents than I am. However, I will focus on how the recommendations in that report have been addressed by the government's response, which was presented to the House on October 16, 2006, and through Bill C-29.
The committee's first recommendation was for the government to reintroduce a bill repeating the provisions of Bill C-47 and add a number of amendments suggested by Ms. Adam, the former Commissioner of Official Languages, when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport on November 22, 2005.
In large part, this is precisely what the government has done. We are strongly committed to protecting and respecting the linguistic rights of Canadians. On October 18, 2006, I introduced legislation that seeks to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Bill C-29 will ensure that official languages obligations continue to apply to the restructured Air Canada and are restored at the various affiliates of the airline.
In many respects, this new bill is substantially similar to Bill C-47. Bill C-29 will require that former internal divisions of Air Canada that fall within federal jurisdiction restore official languages obligations to what existed prior to the restructuring. This includes providing service to the public in both official languages and ensuring employees are able to work in the official language of their choice. The proposed amendments also require affiliates of Air Canada that provide air services, such as Jazz, to offer service to the public in both official languages.
I should point out, however, that this bill as tabled in the House does vary slightly from Bill C-47. As was raised in your report, Ms. Adam, then Commissioner of Official Languages when Bill C-47 was before the Standing Committee on Transport in November 2005, and her officials raised several issues regarding that bill. In essence, the Commissioner testified that some aspects of the bill, as is, left room for interpretation that could potentially reduce the linguistic obligations of Air Canada, ACE Aviation Holdings, and its various affiliates.
In order to address that situation, the commissioner proposed that the various entities, which were intended to be captured by the amendments, should be named specifically in the legislation. In other words, the bill should state that ground handling, technical services, cargo, and Air Canada online would all be subject to the full provisions of the Official Languages Act.
This was also stated in recommendation number 3 of this standing committee's report. However, the amendments proposed by the commissioner raised concerns with some of my officials.
In initial discussions with the office of the commissioner leading up to the drafting of Bill C-29, these concerns were brought to their attention.
Recognizing that there was a valid argument to be made in favour of both sides, every effort was made to arrive at a mutually agreeable compromise that would address all respective concerns. As a result of these discussions, subclauses 10.2(2) and 10.2(3) were added to this draft of the legislation.
These new provisions allow the Governor in Council to name those specific affiliates of Air Canada that will be captured by the proposed legislation through an order in council, if needed.
In this way, Mr. Chair and colleagues, the government will be able to designate these affiliates in the corporate structure that will be subject to the official languages provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act. This also provides the government with sufficient flexibility to add or remove affiliates, as the circumstances warrant, should the company undergo further significant restructuring.
Based on the most recent information available, an order in council could name and ensure language rights at the following affiliates: Air Canada Cargo, Ground Handling and Technical Services.
Incidentally, Air Canada has made it known through the press that a new restructuring is imminent. That is why this list could be revised when and if the bill comes into force.
At this time, we do not believe that Air Canada Online falls under federal jurisdiction, and it should therefore not be subject to the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
By the same reasoning, the government was not prepared to fully support recommendation four, which requested that the new bill stipulate that Jazz, Air Canada Vacations, and Aeroplan be subject to part IV, language of service, of the Official Languages Act. However, the government will ensure that bilingual service to the public will be imposed on Air Canada Jazz, given its nature as a federally regulated undertaking, although it should be noted that the carrier was subject to these same requirements prior to Air Canada's restructuring.
The activities of Aeroplan and Air Canada Vacations, on the other hand, fall outside the scope of federal jurisdiction and therefore were never subject to the legislation prior to restructuring. As such, the bill does not subject Aeroplan and Air Canada Vacations to the official languages provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
I understand that Bill C-47 was supported in principle by all parties in the House. It is my hope that Bill C-29, with the minor amendments that have been incorporated as per the commissioner's and this committee's suggestions, will receive similar support.
That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chair. I would be pleased to answer any questions from committee members.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
Thank you very much, minister. We will now move on to questions.
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, minister, for appearing before us this morning.
I was pleased to hear some of your comments on Air Canada's obligation to comply with bilingualism rules. This is a reality, all the more so when you live in rural areas where it is not easy to get services in your language.
Minister, I understood that you considered the question important and that you were going to support certain amendments designed to ensure that Air Canada respects official languages. Now I'd like to know whether you're going to require the same thing from your colleagues. I'll explain.
The enRoute magazine published by Air Canada is a bilingual publication and thus serves both Anglophone and Francophone clienteles. On page 87 of the October 2006 edition, there is a Government of Canada advertisement drafted in English only. That's a bit contradictory on the part of the government, which says it wants to ensure that Air Canada, its affiliates and all its components comply with the Official Languages Act. That same government publishes an advertisement drafted in only one language in a bilingual Air Canada magazine. The only thing bilingual in this half-page advertisement are the words “Gouvernement du Canada” and “Government of Canada”, which appear side by side.
Minister, don't you think that this kind of thing suggests a somewhat contradictory vision?
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
Thank you for your question, sir.
I'm pleased to see you're in entire agreement with our bill. Your question doesn't concern the essence of this bill, but rather an advertisement. I obviously don't want to defend the advertisement or the person who designed it, but this matter reminds me of an incident that took place on June 24 three years ago, when I found myself at home. Your former colleague, who was minister and member for Hull—Aylmer, had completely forgotten to celebrate Quebec's national holiday and passed over this event in silence in his newsletter. You'll understand the consternation in my community, that is to say the Gatineau community in the Outaouais, when it discovered that a federal minister had forgotten such a thing.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
Because if we're talking about an advertisement that clearly... You're telling me this advertisement is bilingual, aren't you? You said it contained the words “Gouvernement du Canada” and “Government of Canada”. So if a complaint is made on the subject, we're going to check, sir. That's not a problem.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Minister, I'm asking you if you find that consistent. I'm a Francophone from New Brunswick, as you very well know, where there are people who don't know how to read or write, but no more so in English than in French.
How do you think a Francophone citizen, in the case of a government advertisement, apart from the words “Gouvernement du Canada”, is able to understand what's being written? So do you find...?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
...has trouble reading, it will be extremely difficult for him to read the advertisement.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Minister, is it logical, on the one hand, to ask Air Canada to respect official languages and, on the other, to see the same government placing a unilingual advertisement in a bilingual Air Canada magazine?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
I answered your question, sir. You're asking me if it's logical for Air Canada to respect official languages? Yes, that's completely normal. Did an error occur in the case of the advertisement you're referring to? I don't know all the circumstances surrounding your allegations this morning. I'll be pleased to inquire into the matter. You have the power to do so as well.
But the fundamental question this morning, sir, is whether Air Canada, following its restructuring, must, according to the Commissioner of Official Languages and the committee on which you sit, be subject to official language provisions. The answer is yes, Bill C-29 is before you simply for your consideration. Yes, it's utterly normal that we be able to operate in both official languages in Canada.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Further to your comments on Jazz, sir, could you elaborate on your idea because I want you to tell us clearly that Jazz will be subject to the Official Languages Act. Is that in fact what you said a moment ago?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
Yes, under Part IV of the Official Languages Act, which concerns service to the public. Before September 30, 2004, Jazz was subject to Part IV of the Official Languages Act. The bill you are considering this morning restates that provision.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here this morning, minister. For the Francophone population, being able to use the official language of French is, I believe, extremely important. You have to understand the philosophy of this question. A citizen who chooses Air Canada, it seems to me, should be able to speak his or her language at any time and expect an answer in that language. The problem is that each of us has personally experienced a situation with Air Canada in which we were not served in our language. In my case, it was the last time I went to Winnipeg. Bilingual service was lacking, but there was also the fact that they couldn't provide us with a newspaper in French. They distributed all the papers in English, and there weren't any in French. So here we're talking about the philosophy of the business.
Air Canada doesn't pay attention to Francophones in providing its services. I understand that you told us we were here to talk about the bill. We're definitely going to discuss it in all its aspects, but it think it's important to understand what service to the public means.
Since I've been sitting on this committee, I've constantly received complaints from people who resent the lack of consideration when they use Air Canada's services. That's why it's important for us to examine all the ramifications of this bill, and I believe that should also be the government's concern, whatever that government may be. It's not because you are Conservatives that the question arises, but it should simply be a concern of the government to see that the citizens of this country can be served in their language.
Ms. Adam, the former Commissioner of Official Languages, compared Air Canada's service to a gruyère cheese. With the current provisions, the situation will remain the same. When you contact that kind of service, it's possible to speak French, but people answer you in English. But it's different if you contact Aeroplan. And yet the two are directly related.
My question is whether the government shares the view that all services should be offered to everyone in both official languages. Do you intend to take measures so that all Canadian citizens can have access to services in their language?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
As you said so well, your question goes beyond the provisions of the bill we're debating today. The purpose of those provisions is essentially to restore language rights and enabling conditions to what they were the moment Air Canada proceeded with its restructuring. The purpose of the bill is to act on the obligation imposed. Your committee and the Commissioner of Official Languages have informed Air Canada on numerous occasions that it had strayed from the provisions of the act following its restructuring.
The other point that you raised concerns the very core of the business, in my view. I would be very uncomfortable commenting on how the business does its marketing or manages its day-to-day affairs. I believe the business served approximately 32 million passengers last year.
As for official language complaints, I would note that they aren't very numerous, not to say virtually negligible. If this business wants to keep its clientele in the competitive market we have right now—and I think that's the case—it will have to make every possible effort to ensure that clientele receives good service, but also that it is satisfied enough that it wants to use its services again. I'm giving you this explanation because it seems to me that's a matter of simple common sense.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
However, reference is being made to exclusions in the enforcement of provisions, in the case of Aeroplan, for example. It's also said that the affiliates that are subject to them won't be named. Aren't they thus ensuring that citizens won't receive bilingual service, that there will still be complaints and that we'll still have to resort to a legislative process to correct the situation.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
Many businesses, such as credit card companies, which advertise all kinds of promotions similar to Aeroplan incentives, are expanding their markets to include all Canadians. Consequently, they have to include their services in their marketing strategy. Is it the government's role to intervene directly and to tell these people that they should do that? I don't think there'd be any end to it.
What we want is to establish with the Air Canada people that there were conditions on the restructuring, on the privatization of their business. They seem to have been forgotten that. That's what the Commissioner of Official Languages criticized. That's the problem we want to solve. So I hope that my colleagues around the table will all see matters in that light so that we can make progress on this matter.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
Thank you, minister and Ms. Barbot.
The third question will be asked by Mr. Godin.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, minister.
I must say I don't really agree with you, and I'm going to tell you why. Let's take, for example, Air Canada Online and go back to when the government decided to sell Air Canada to the public sector. An act requiring compliance with the Official Languages Act was passed.
If Air Canada were a public organization and not a private business, would the services of Air Canada online be bilingual?