Official Languages Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

In this bill, we're proposing that Air Canada give its employees, in the areas of legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada which we want to restore, in official languages, for example, an equal opportunity and chance to work in those businesses. Mr. Pigeon can perhaps provide you with more information on the provisions of all the other acts of Parliament that are also entirely applicable in the circumstances. So when we talk about employment equity or other provisions of that kind — our colleague Mr. Blackburn is responsible, as you know, for the ministry of labour — the acts under his responsibility must also apply to people working for those businesses.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you very much, Ms. Boucher and minister. Minister, thank you for coming and I hope your day goes well.

We're going to take 30 seconds to allow the minister to leave. I believe Ms. Gravitis-Beck and Mr. Pigeon are going to stay here for the next hour.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Murphy will ask the next questions. He has five minutes.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Pigeon and Ms. Gravitis-Beck, I'm going to ask you two brief questions. First, I'm going to start with the essence of the Official Languages Act as regards the level of service in New Brunswick.

In New Brunswick, throughout my childhood and when I was young, we had Air Canada services. Now Air Canada is absent from the Province of New Brunswick; there are only services provided by Air Canada Jazz.

I understand that the minister told us that Part IV of the act applies to the services of Air Canada Jazz. That means that communications and service to the public will be bilingual. I understand that.

However, in Moncton, New Brunswick, a lot of people working for Air Canada Jazz live in Moncton, a bilingual city in a bilingual province. However, they don't enjoy official language rights under the other parts of the Official Languages Act. That means language of work, the most important right. In other words, in Moncton, I imagine that virtually all Air Canada Jazz employees are bilingual and that they come from New Brunswick. Most may be Acadians. But they don't have the right to work in their language, a right that is protected by the Official Languages Act. I think that's terrible and, in a political sense, I think that the new Conservative government is going to study this aspect. It's clearly not fair.

The second question, which is a little more legal in nature, concerns the definition of incidental services. You've concluded that Aeroplan is not subject to this act because Aeroplan doesn't provide air services; it's an incidental service. I wonder about that. I'd like to know the reason for that state of affairs.

In proposed section 10.2, the definitions of incidental services include ticketing and reservation services. Aeroplan points are accumulated by everyone. You have to contact the Aeroplan centre for Aeroplan ticketing and reservation services.

What's the difference between Air Canada ticketing and Aeroplan ticketing for a person who lives in Moncton, who has points and wants a ticket for a flight on an Air Canada Jazz aircraft? What's the difference?

It seems to me ticketing is a central service. I'm asking for your opinion.

[Jacques Pigeon]

Mr. Chair, with regard to the first question, I'd like to say, with respect to the bill, that the member asking the question is absolutely right when he says that Air Canada Jazz isn't subject to all the provisions of the act. It's subsection 4 that states that Air Canada Jazz will be subject only to Part IV, concerning service to the public, like any future business that could provide air services. That doesn't include language of work, which is covered by Part V.

As regards the question on incidental services, the definition of incidental services is in the bill for the purposes of the notion of air service, which corresponds to another definition, which states the following:

“air service” has the same meaning as in subsection 55(1) of the Canada Transportation Act and includes incidental services.

What determines whether an affiliate will be covered by the act is whether it operates a business that is regulated by the federal government. In other words, it must be determined whether it's a business regulated by the Parliament of Canada? If the answer...

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Pigeon, I have to interrupt you.

Ms. Barbot, it's your turn to ask the next question.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

I'm going to ask you to continue because this is entirely along the lines of the question I wanted to ask you.

[Jacques Pigeon]

Then, Mr. Chair, I think it's important to know that, if an affiliate operates an undertaking that comes under the authority of the Parliament of Canada in respect of air services, that business will automatically be subject to the act.

What I said in my previous testimony is that the question whether or not a business comes under the authority of the Parliament of Canada is a question of fact and a question of law. I gave you my perception based on the facts we currently have.

In the case of Aeroplan, if I understand correctly, that's a limited partnership that belongs in part to Air Canada, but also to other interests. The business operates a customer loyalty program under which users accumulate points that relate not only to the airline, but also to other kinds of businesses or enterprises.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

It must be understood here that the problem is that there is a question, as you say, concerning the government's authority. However, the government isn't just the Department of Transport. So it's an entity. I'm sorry the minister isn't here, because this is a political question. If you realize that not everyone can do business with Air Canada, can't have Aeroplan service... If I don't speak English, I can't take advantage of Aeroplan's services; so I'm deprived of the services offered by Air Canada.

It seems to me that this same government should have assurances that, as a citizen, I'm going to be able to have access to those services. Don't anyone tell me that it's not incidental, since, if I don't have it, I'm deprived of the opportunity to exercise my right. So you can't tell me that this kind of thing is being taken away from me because it comes under another authority. If the authority isn't there, establish it. It's the government's duty to ensure that I, as a Francophone, have access to these services whether I'm in Moncton, Montreal or wherever. And there's the rub. I'm going to be told that, depending on the little boxes, it belongs or doesn't belong. But, as a citizen, that's not what I want: I want to have full access to my rights.

How can the government guarantee me that access?

[Jacques Pigeon]

From a purely technical and legal standpoint, I think that the bill before you for consideration is an attempt at covering everything that comes under the authority of the Parliament of Canada. That's the technical answer that I can give you.

The limits are constitutional limits. So it's not something we can change or that the government could change. When you say constitutional limit, you're talking about the division of powers between the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures. Some powers fall to the Parliament of Canada, others to the provinces. That's what we're talking about.

I think that, if you examine subsection 10.2(1) of the bill before you, you'll see that we're trying to cover everything that is possible for the Parliament of Canada to cover under its constitutional authority in respect of aeronautics.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Yes, and that's where it's disappointing. You're telling me that this is covered under the act, but citizens are still very dissatisfied.

The other factor is when you say that the affiliates won't be named, but that there will be an order. I'd like to know what would prevent the government from naming the ones that already exist and providing a way out for other affiliates that are subsequently created. It seems to me both can be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Please be very brief, Mr. Pigeon.

[Jacques Pigeon]

Mr. Chair, the principle of the bill is that, for a business to remain covered, it must, at some point, meet two criteria: it must belong to the Air Canada group, which is defined, and it must also be controlled by ACE Aviation Holdings Inc., which is the Air Canada's parent company and now trades on the Stock Exchange.

So under the bill, if any subsidiary were sold or if ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. lost its control over that affiliate, in future, that affiliate would no longer be subject to subsection 10.2(1). Conversely, if a new affiliate were created that does not exist today and if it were subject to subsection 10.2(1), it would be covered by the act, even if it did not exist on the first day the act entered into force.

So it works on both sides.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is probably for Mr. Pigeon. We've talked a lot about Air Canada and what Bill C-29 intends to impose on it with respect to official languages. You know that Air Canada comes to Quebec, I hope, and that there is naturally a series of rules concerning Air Canada. However, when you're subject to the Official Languages Act, that includes both English and French. You know that there are linguistic controversies in Quebec; I believe they're talked about quite clearly in the media.

Do you have the necessary authority under Bill C-29 to impose English on Air Canada in Quebec? Some Air Canada employees work in Quebec, among other things, in ticketing, and so on. Do you have the option of requiring those employees to know English in Quebec, since we're in an official language community?

[Jacques Pigeon]

Do you mean in a language of work context?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

You mentioned a subsection earlier in response to a question on the application of Bill C-29. You referred to a number of subsidiaries, among other things. There are the employees, ticketing. I'm not talking about Aeroplan; we're forgetting that for the moment. I'm talking about everything that's currently governed about the Official Languages Act. The official languages are English and French. So I want to know whether the principle that's being claimed for the Francophones of the other provinces is also valid for Anglophones living in Quebec.

Could an Anglophone employee in Quebec be asked to be bilingual in order to work at Air Canada in Montreal or Quebec City?

[Jacques Pigeon]

I wouldn't want to speculate on the subject of language of work, but I could undertake to answer your question. I'm not sure I know the answer and I don't want to mislead you.

However, as the minister said, the purpose of the bill is to maintain the level of bilingualism that existed immediately before Air Canada was restructured, even though various affiliates were divided during the corporate restructuring, which lasted 18 months.

So, the consequence, which we see in this bill, is that Air Canada isn't affected because it's already subject to the Official Languages Act as a whole. The bill would cover affiliates such as Ground Handling, Technical Services and Cargo, and it wouldn't apply just to language of work; all those services would be subject to all parts of the Official Languages Act, as was the case when they were part of Air Canada. Airlines which are subsidiaries, other than Air Canada itself, would be subject to Part IV of the act, which concerns service to the public.

I would point out to you that the bill goes a little further than the previous act in that, until today, the affiliates have never been directly subject to the provisions of the act. Air Canada had an obligation to ensure that its affiliates provided services in both official languages wherever Air Canada was required to do the same.

The bill proposes that the affiliates have a certain amount of direct legal responsibility. So in that sense, the bill goes a little further. If Parliament saw fit to pass this bill in order to maintain the level of bilingualism that previously existed, it would directly impose on Air Canada's affiliates, which have hitherto never been subject to the Official Languages Act, an obligation to provide service to the public under Part IV of the Official Languages Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Pigeon.

The next question will be asked by Mr. Godin.

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

Mr. Chair, let's take Air Canada Online or Aeroplan, for example. The points accumulated under Aeroplan can't be used to buy a ticket with WestJet or CanJet or another corporation. Ultimately, we can only buy our Air Canada ticket; this is a system specific to Canada. It has somewhat set it aside.

When I shop at Sears and buy a product, I'm given an air miles credit. I don't have to request them; they appear directly on my account statement.

When I say Aeroplan, I'm talking about customer service. A Canadian can phone Aeroplan because Air Canada offers this service. It's Air Canada that benefits after the fact. We can call Aeroplan to buy a plane ticket from Bathurst to Vancouver and be told: “I'm sorry, I don't speak French.” They're not required to speak French to me. And yet this is an Air Canada service.

As regards Air Canada Online, if I buy a plane ticket at the airport counter, from that I understand, service must be offered to me in both official languages.

Thanks to the new technology, if I press “1” on the telephone, I'll be served in English in at least two minutes; if I press “2”, I'll be served in French. We're in second place, of course; that's hard to accept, but that's the way it is. There can't be two number ones; there has to be a number “1” and a number “2”. We have to accept that. If I press “2”, I get service in French, using this new technology. The minister was clear on this subject: he won't go ahead with the new technology; things will be the way they were before.

As regards Air Canada Online, the minister contends in his brief that the government isn't ready to support Part IV. At least that's what I understand. “At this time, we do not believe that Air Canada Online falls under federal jurisdiction...” That's what's written. I agree with you because it isn't written in the federal act.

Is there a constitutional barrier? Air Canada Online isn't a provincial jurisdiction. Can we add to the act that Air Canada Online must be bilingual? Yes or no?

[Jacques Pigeon]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to give you a piece of information. The act requires that Air Canada comply with Part IV. If this bill went ahead, it would require Jazz to comply with Part IV.

You must be aware of the fact that that part contains section 25 of the act, which states that, every time a federal institution—Air Canada or the affiliates covered—retains the services of a contractor or a third party that renders services for it, it has an obligation, whether that third party is subject to the act or not, to ensure that the service provided on its behalf is provided in both official languages. Each time, Air Canada or the federal institution, under the Official Languages Act, would therefore have an obligation to ensure that the service is provided in both official languages.

I simply want to emphasize for the committee that section 25 can indirectly make connections that it is impossible to make because of the constitutional limits I explained...

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

Why?

[Jacques Pigeon]

Because...