Official Languages Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We will now go to Mr. Galipeau.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

I really appreciate the responsibilities of this committee, on which I have been for a few years and whose proceedings I have been following for over four decades. I am well aware that this committee has major responsibilities, but I don't really like hearing some of the new members try to lecture us. Actually, in many cases, it is not so much lecturing as it is wagging fingers.

I have been defending the rights of francophones in a minority situation in Ontario in education, justice and health, and I have achieved tangible results. So I do not appreciate the tone we are being lectured in. The unanimous consent given by the House in June was not conditional; it was unanimous and unconditional. If some people want to get into BS or demagoguery, they can go right ahead, but not at my expense.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

You can talk about BS if you want, but I feel that we are sort of at cross-purposes in this debate. I think we are stooping rather low, but we can still get back on the right track. I am very surprised to see that some people don't want to do this work. I honestly think it's very disappointing.

We have many things to do. But how could we refuse the report when everyone was waiting for it? We would have never known that there was a problem if we had not agreed to receive it and to look at it. How can we guess the content and the form of a report before we see it?

It is all a matter of perspective: some are talking about a forced unanimous consent whereas others think that the consent was legitimate. We have to see. I personally felt I was pushed to the wall. We had no choice. In order to continue our work and move discussions forward, we need documents. They have to be submitted; we have to get them.

But once we have them and if we realize there has been an affront, a major blow to official languages, what do we do? We no longer have a way out, we are trapped, we can no longer do the study, ask questions and continue with the research because we agreed to receive the documents? Our hands are tied and we can no longer do our work, is that it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Bélanger, you have the floor.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, I had no intention of making another comment, but I have been following the debate and some clarifications must be made.

Refusing unanimous consent is no easy task. I know this because I have already experienced it in the House. I did so in the House when I was on the government side. So it is not easy and it comes with private and public consequences.

I agree with my colleagues who said they would have given their consent. I am hearing that consent can be unconditional, and it certainly seems to be. But the reality is that consent is often given to move things forward. I think that is what happened in the House that day. It was an issue of importance for Canadians who were waiting for information. We had been talking about it for a number of days. If it had been refused—and I agree with my colleague Mr. Godin on that—because the translation was not available for a 40,000-page document, there would have been two public debates in the country, one of which would have been very negative in terms of the linguistic duality issue.

I am one of the ones who gave their consent; I was in the House. However, I did so reluctantly, since I wanted to know why we had not previously sought the approval of members and parties. So I had let it go at the time because I thought the issue at hand was so important that it couldn't wait. My hope was that I would understand what happened afterwards. The goal was not to punish or reinvent anything, but to understand and try to make sure it didn't happen again. I think it's fair and it is part of the committee's mandate. That is why I support Mr. Godin's motion.

Yet some of the things I have been hearing here have made me frown and I have to put a stop to it. First of all, we have to stop insulting each other. We must understand that we have work to do. If the government decides to stop everything, it will become clear very quickly; we will understand and we will act accordingly, Mr. Chair.

But I intend to cooperate until further notice. I have shown my intention this morning and I will continue to do so until it becomes obvious, if it does, that the government has no intention of cooperating in any field whatsoever. If it is systematically blocking everything, we will know what to expect. We will see when the time comes. I have not reached that conclusion yet. Meanwhile, we should show flexibility and understanding so that we do not poison our relationships too much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

I will call the vote on Monsieur Godin's motion.

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

Can I ask for a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Monsieur Godin has called for a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We are currently studying the last motion of the day, introduced by Mr. Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Bélanger, could you read the motion?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Certainly, Mr. Chair:

That the Committee invite the government, specifically the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, to introduce a bill before the end of 2011, regarding the application of the Official Languages Act to Air Canada, its subsidiaries and partners.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Monsieur Bélanger has moved a motion.

Monsieur Bélanger, would you care to speak to your motion?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

If you insist, Mr. Chairman.

This is a longstanding issue, and I'll try very rapidly to explain the genesis of the motion today.

Air Canada used to be a crown corporation. When Air Canada was privatized, it was understood by all that Air Canada would be subject to the Official Languages Act of the country, and Air Canada willingly accepted that. We had representatives of the corporation come before this committee confirming that not too long ago. So there's no question about that.

In the early 2000s, after some financial difficulties—and I gather that was the reason it undertook what it did—Air Canada started restructuring its corporate structure, creating subsidiaries, and so forth. One in particular was the crux of the issue, Jazz, and Air Canada's maintaining at the time that Jazz was not subject to the Official Languages Act. The view of the government was different, the view of the official languages commissioner was different, the view of the courts was also somewhat different. The government at the time introduced legislation in 2005; that is, the Minister of Transport, Jean Lapierre, introduced legislation to clarify that situation.

We had an election and the government changed. Mr. Cannon, the Minister of Transport in the Conservative government, introduced the same legislation. It died on the order paper at prorogation. He reintroduced it afterwards and it died at the dissolution of Parliament for the 2008 election—which was referenced this morning in another discussion. Since then there has been no introduction of the bill.

Some committee members will recall that the committee had passed a motion asking the government to introduce a bill like this. We reported the motion to the House and I had asked that the report be adopted by the House. It was passed unanimously by the 252 members who were there and who voted for the government to introduce a bill.

I believe the minister at the time was John Baird. He spoke before this committee, saying that he would introduce a bill rather quickly. His successor, Chuck Strahl, said the same thing in the House. Yet the bill never happened.

I asked the minister a question yesterday and his answer sort of whets my appetite. That is why, after the obvious desire of the Conservative government at the time and of the previous Liberal government, I want us to clarify the terms of the legislation for Air Canada, its subsidiaries and its partners. It is important that this be clearly laid out in legislation.

So I move today that the committee try again and ask the government to introduce a bill like that— by the end of the year, I hope—so that we can move forward. That is the history behind the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Godin, the floor is yours.

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

I am going to vote in favour of the motion. It is true that this has been going on for a long time. The bill was introduced in 2005, according to Mauril, if I am not mistaken. In addition, it was introduced again by the current government in 2006, but it seems that nothing ever came of it. But we are not going to be called a “bunch of turkeys” again; we have four years ahead of us. If the bill were introduced today, we would like to know what the government would do.

There is a problem with the history of Air Canada, which is subject to the Official Languages Act. However, in terms of its affiliates, like Jazz, not all parties are protected. So this is about closing the loop. That is what the bill was supposed to do.

I also spoke with Minister Baird and Minister Cannon when they were the ministers of transport. We talked about this and a bill was supposed to appear somewhere. If not, we are definitely going to miss the boat. If we truly want to protect the French language, the Air Canada bill is appropriate. It could be a solution.

We have already heard about it from witnesses who appeared before the committee, and Air Canada knows that the bill is underway. This is a good motion and I am going to support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Trottier, you have the floor.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I am going to vote against the motion because the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has just submitted his report. It seems that the commissioner did a study. So it would be a bit redundant for the committee to go over the issue again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Bélanger, you have the floor.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to let Mr. Trottier know that, two years ago, it was the commissioner himself who made the recommendation in his annual report for the government to introduce this type of bill. And he has stood by this recommendation ever since.

We are definitely not going against the Commissioner of Official Languages; we would be siding with him if we adopted a motion like this. I just thought you should know that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

I would certainly echo those comments: we are not going against the commissioner, but rather in the same direction. The Commissioner of Official Languages says that a bill is needed.

It is one thing to make recommendations about Air Canada, determining whether it complies with the Official Languages Act and what is going to do to comply. But it takes a piece of legislation to get companies that are part of Air Canada, like Jazz for example, to comply.

That is the purpose of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Galipeau, you have the floor.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very sensitive to this whole situation. When Air Canada was a crown corporation, it did not comply with the Official Languages Act. The legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada in order to privatize this former crown corporation included a section that required Air Canada to remain subject to the Official Languages Act.

Every year for decades, the Commissioner of Official Languages has complained about Air Canada for not meeting its obligations year after year after year. I remember the study that the Standing Committee on Official Languages did on Air Canada nearly 10 years ago. When my MP submitted the report to the House, he even agreed with the work that I had done in preparing the report.

A few minutes ago, during a discussion on another topic, both sides pointed to the fact that there must be some form of understanding between government members and the members of the opposition before moving ahead with a bill. I feel that the question raised by a member from the third party has its merit, but we should have found a way to reach a consensus before bringing the question up.

Some work had been done, but I think more work should have been done when the third party was in power, 15 years ago. There is still work to be done. I feel there is goodwill on all sides. Perhaps there is not enough goodwill on Air Canada’s part.

I intend to tell the minister about the history of this issue, but I am not about to force his hand with a resolution passed by a parliamentary committee. I think it would be more practical to do it man to man, eyeball to eyeball, so to speak.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Harris, you have the floor.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

The words used there suggest that the committee would be inviting the government, rather than insisting. It is simply a matter of discussing the issue with the minister. If Mr. Galipeau wants to go and talk to him, he will certainly have the committee’s support. We can show our support by passing the motion. That will definitely help us get a consensus on the issue.