Official Languages Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Yes, that's what we're doing.

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

No, you're saying that Air Canada Online isn't subject to the act and that your government isn't ready to ensure it is.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

No, because I'm telling you that Air Canada Online wasn't there before, and, sure enough, we're restoring the situation that previously existed. That's what we're doing.

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

So you're preparing for the future, is that what you're telling me?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

And what you're telling me is that we'll be much more rigorous in our way of doing things. I quote you the number of complaints relative to the number of passengers, and you say it's not enough, that more should be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

It's unfortunate, minister, but time is up.

I invite Mr. Petit to ask you the next question.

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

Thank you.

Good morning, minister. First, I'd like to thank you for coming to the Committee on Official Languages. Since the meeting is being televised, I'd like to thank you personally for enabling us to travel in Canada, with Ms. Verner's authorization, to meet the Francophone committees. That's the first time in 10 years. So I'd like to point that out.

Second, I'd like to bring the following matter to your attention. Air Canada was privatized—I use that term because it went bankrupt under the Liberals. You tabled Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act. We know the bill, but, since the public is watching us, it would be good for it to know what the bill is about.

Furthermore, can Bill C-29 now firm up the government's commitment with regard to language rights?

Third, could you explain to us in greater detail why it is important for a company like Air Canada to ensure equal status of Francophones and Anglophones?

I'd like to hear what you have to say on that point because, for many people, when you talk about Air Canada, you're talking about aircraft. However, perhaps there's more to it than that. So I'd like you to elaborate on the subject so that the viewing public can know more about it.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for your question, sir.

It is important to do a little review of the history of this issue. It will be recalled that Air Canada was for many years—and still is—the country's national carrier. Air Canada was subject to the country's Official Languages Act, since, under its enabling legislation, its principal shareholder was the Government of Canada. Consequently, as an institution, it was subject to the provisions of the act.

From the time Air Canada was sold until it was restructured, there was essentially no problem with regard to compliance with the provisions of the Official Languages Act, if I'm not mistaken. However, following the restructuring, after Air Canada's problems, a certain number of things happened. Among those things, Ground Handling, Technical Services and Cargo, an Air Canada division, which previously, of course, had been subject to the provisions of the act, were covered by the act. Following the restructuring, we dropped those things.

The purpose of this bill is to restore its spirit, but also, in fact, what previously existed, so that we can ensure that those who use Air Canada's services in Canada receive exactly the same services as used to be provided. And, in that sense, we'll be able to restore the Official Languages Act.

As you know, your political party is absolutely devoted to the equality of the country's two official languages. And the purpose of the action we took last week was essentially to solidify matters to that end.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Is that all? You have two minutes left.

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

Okay. Minister, earlier you referred to the privatization of Air Canada through new capital stock. When you say privatization. What are you talking about?

Are you talking about a company like those we're familiar with in the strictly private sector, or are you talking about a company that is both public and private? Could you explain that to us so that the public knows exactly why we have the power to intervene in this type of company? I'd like to know your opinion on the subject of private and public companies.

Earlier, Mr. Godin seemed to be saying that, since this is a private company, the act won't apply, whereas it applied when it was public.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I'm trying to find my notes. In 1988-1989, as part of the deregulation of the air transportation industry, the Government of Canada privatized Air Canada under the act we're discussing by selling the government's shares in the air carrier. That's how that was done.

That transaction entailed a series of obligations, that is to say that, when the privatization was announced, those who wanted to acquire Air Canada had to undertake to meet commitments with respect to the Official Languages Act.

We are here today because we observed, following the virtual bankruptcy of that business and its rebirth or recovery, that there were situations where the Official Languages Act was no longer being complied with. So we find ourselves in a situation where, as parliamentarians, we have to restore the provisions of the act so that what was previously there was complied with.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, minister and Mr. Petit.

We're going to start our second round. Mr. Simard, you have five minutes, please.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here today, minister.

Minister, I'd like you to understand something of our committee's point of view. The committee's been in existence for 25 years, I think, and Air Canada's been causing us problems for 25 years. It's really the company that's done the most to drive us crazy. It's a real problem.

If there are fewer complaints against Air Canada today, I believe that's because people have given up. In my case, I travel from Winnipeg to Ottawa twice a week. I can tell you that I could file a complain every week. So I think that people have simply decided to stop complaining. The situation has gotten to that point. That has to be clear.

I can tell you that the Standing Committee on Official Languages did not necessarily agree on Bill C-47 at the outset. It's important to mention that. We agreed with the remarks by former Commissioner of Official Languages Diane Adam that all organizations reporting to Air Canada, such as Jazz and Aeroplan, should be subject to the Official Languages Act.

That's what concerns me. If we make it possible to dilute the scope of the act, if we permit corporations regulated by the federal government to split and then to stop complying with the Official Languages Act, they'll all do it. That would set a precedent.

That, honestly, is why this is a matter of concern. If the federal government doesn't defend the Official Languages Act, who will? I'm very disappointed that the government intends to proceed by order rather than set down this obligation in the act. I think that leaves room for subjectivity. It will be up to Cabinet to decide, if I'm not mistaken, which organizations will be subject to the act.

Please explain the situation to me because that's how I understand your intention.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

All right. I'm going to let Mr. Pigeon explain this part, Mr. Simard.

[Jacques Pigeon, Departmental General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport]

Mr. Chair, we addressed the technical drafting of the bill in a conceptual manner. For greater certainty, the order in council would simply name certain businesses, but subsection 10.2(1) applies to businesses that meet the criteria it contains.

In other words, the act “applies to any affiliate of the Corporation in respect of any undertaking that the affiliate owns or operates and that comes within the legislative authority of Parliament in respect of aeronautics, including [...].”

According to the measure that is provided for in the bill, in the case of a regulated business falling under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada in respect of aeronautics, that business would be required to provide services in both official languages.

The word “including” has been used for greater certainty so that it is very clear for the general public. In other words, it could be a matter of interpretation in determining which businesses—because there are a number of them in the Air Canada empire—fall under federal jurisdiction and which ones do not.

The order in council makes it possible to help the general public understand which businesses are subject to federal jurisdiction, according to the government's position. It clarifies the facts, if you will. The question as to whether the business is federal or provincial is a question of law, of course, but also a question of fact.

So the order in council will apply the act in the context of the provision in question so that the general public is informed of which businesses, in Air Canada's corporate universe, are included and which ones are not.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to move on to another subject.

Client services are provided in French only when aircraft leave from Ottawa, Moncton or certain other cities. With all this going on in terms of Francophone immigration in the West, because we're trying to spread out immigration a little, have you considered the possibility of increasing the number of cities that would be subject to customer service in French?

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Please be very brief.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

With your permission, I'll read the memo I received on this matter, in English.

Any other route where the demand for bilingual services is at least 5 percent

Air Canada is responsible for developing the methodology for the survey with the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada

The last demand survey conducted by Air Canada was in 1993 (with an update in 2001 following the merger with Canadian Airlines International)

Treasury Board directives require demand surveys to be conducted every 10 years. As such, Air Canada was supposed to conduct a new survey in 2003, but did not proceed because they were in bankruptcy protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act

The next demand survey for Air Canada is slated to commence in fall 2006, and be completed by spring 2007.

So, Mr. Simard, that's where we're setting guidelines.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

We'll now ask Mr. Lemieux to ask the next question.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Good morning, minister, and thank you for coming to speak to us about Bill C-29 this morning, and about the government's response to our committee's first report.

Can you explain to us the difference between ACE Aviation Holdings Inc., which will be subject in part to the Official Languages Act, and the others that will not, such as Air Canada Jazz and the other affiliates, Aeroplan and Air Canada Vacations?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for your question, which is further to that of our colleague Mr. Simard. Mr. Pigeon was providing the explanation, particularly with regard to section 10.1. I would add—and this may reassure Mr. Godin—that that provision will instantly enable us to restore these matters by order, if ever there were a new restructuring. I mentioned in my remarks that that was highly possible since ACE Aviation Holdings has already announced it wants to do a new restructuring.

Mr. Pigeon was saying that certain parts of ACE Aviation Holdings or Air Canada may come under the jurisdiction of the provinces or another legal entity, I don't know. That could be a new entity, which could be established in New Brunswick or Manitoba, under their laws, but it wouldn't necessarily be Canadian in scope. We wouldn't have a constitutional right to intervene in that sense. We have a responsibility under the Constitution and under the laws of this Parliament. In that sense, we can intervene. Mr. Pigeon, if you...

[Jacques Pigeon]

What the minister says is absolutely correct. Parliament's powers are framed by certain constitutional limits. No provision of the Constitution of Canada refers to official languages as such, as you know. When Parliament legislates in the area of official languages, it is always in reference to another of its powers contained in the Canadian Constitution.

In this case, the Parliament of Canada would make use of the fact that federal businesses come under its jurisdiction. Consequently, it can impose official languages obligations, but not only on businesses coming under the authority of the Parliament of Canada. In the past, for example, Parliament was unable to impose all the provisions of the Official Languages Act because Petro-Canada, after being privatized, was no longer a business reporting to the Parliament of Canada. It's the same thing, it's the same principle that applies in this case. There are certain limits.

As to Air Canada businesses, as I said a little earlier, the question is whether or not a specific business comes under the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada. That's a question of law, of course, but it's also a question of fact. What are the facts as we know them now? Among the businesses that clearly come under the legislative authority of Parliament, there's obviously Air Canada, the main company. It still exists, and the Official Languages Act applies to the company under subsection 10(1), which is not amended by this bill. That provision remains in existence and in effect. This company is clearly federal. Air Canada Ground Handling, Air Canada Technical Services and Air Canada Cargo would be three businesses coming under the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, in our view. Obviously, Air Canada Jazz is an airline and is therefore federal. In the case of Aeroplan, Air Canada Online, Air Canada Vacations and Air Canada Capital, which is a corporation, we feel that those businesses do not fall under the legislative authority of Parliament and, consequently, are not governed by subsection 10.2(1).

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Pigeon.

Mr. Lemieux, your five-minute period is up.

I would ask Mr. Carrier to ask the next question.