Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on the amendment proposed by the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans to Bill C-26. I appreciate the arguments raised by the hon. member and I want to alleviate his fears by saying that I like him.
From the outset, this government has clearly established that Canadians must be able to count on their national carrier to serve them in the official language of their choice.
Along with safety, that is one of the two fundamental concerns that must be met, as we prepare to restructure our airline industry. Considering that our linguistic duality is an integral part of Canada's identity, that position should come as no surprise to anyone.
The government met the concerns expressed by the Commissioner of Official Languages by defining Air Canada's obligations to its subsidiaries.
In fact, this proposal meets every fundamental concern raised by the official language commissioner when she addressed the two standing committees on transport. The commissioner publicly expressed her support for the federal government's measures in that regard when she said:
The Commissioner of Official Languages, Dr. Dyane Adam, welcomes the federal government's decision to clarify the linguistic obligations of air carriers affiliated to Air Canada.
The amendments proposed by the hon. member opposite can be summarized as follows: to directly impose on Air Canada's subsidiaries the provisions of the Official Languages Act on the language of work, part V, and the representation of linguistic minorities. part VI; to create for Air Canada and the subsidiaries that it controls a requirement to submit reports to the Treasury Board regarding their employee population; to allow the Commissioner of Official Languages to investigate complaints relating to delays in complying with part VI in the case of subsidiaries controlled by Air Canada; to impose on the governor in council an obligation to consult the linguistic group adversely affected before making a decision regarding the measures to be taken if a subsidiary controlled by Air Canada fails to comply with part VI; to require Air Canada to make available certain documents in both official languages, one year after the coming into force of the act.
Briefly stated, the government's position on these amendments is that they are not necessary, that they represent an unreasonable extension of the guidelines in the Official Languages Act.
I would now like to explain our reasoning. One of the main purposes of the Official Languages Act is to ensure that Canadians can receive services in the official language of their choice from federal institutions and be represented within those institutions.
Air Canada is no longer a federal institution per se but, in order to maintain existing linguistic rights, the Act to incorporate Air Canada stipulated that Air Canada would continue to be fully subject to the Official Languages Act.
Bill C-26 creates a precedent by extending the obligations of an entity subject to the Official Languages Act to its subsidiaries. But this precedent was created within the framework of an entity that is no longer a federal institution per se. It is only through legal assimilation that Air Canada remains subject to the Official Languages Act. Other private air carriers are not subject to the Official Languages Act and therefore do not have the same legal obligations as Air Canada.
Enforcing parts V and VI could impose considerable obligations on private sector entities, which are not now and never were subject to the Official Languages Act.
As I said earlier, Bill C-26 already creates an important precedent by extending Air Canada's linguistic obligations with respect to its subsidiaries, in particular by ensuring that they comply with part IV, a key component of the Official Languages Act.
Air Canada is fully subject to the Official Language Act and there is therefore no need to include in Bill C-26 any provisions requiring Air Canada to translate its working tools or to report on the composition of its personnel. If there are any problems relating to the application of Air Canada's obligations, they should be solved by other means.
Contrary to Bill C-26, which sets out and extends the obligations of Air Canada—an entity which is already subject to the Official Languages Act—the proposed amendments would have the effect of creating linguistic obligations for entities which have never been explicitly subject to that legislation. This would establish a major precedent.
In conclusion, if we concentrate on the essential question of services to the public and require Air Canada to ensure that its affiliates provide the services Canadians expect to receive, we feel that this is a responsible way for government to act.
The motion by my colleague across the way must be rejected and I trust I have given the underlying reasons for so doing. Since we still have a few minutes until the end of the debate, I must point out on behalf of the members on this side of the House that we sincerely and strongly support all the provisions of the Official Languages Act.
I have been a member of parliament for 17 years, and I had the honour of being here at the same time as the great parliamentarians of that period, not only the current Prime Minister, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, but also Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Marchand, Mr. Pelletier, Mr. Lalonde and all the others, including members from the other side of the House.
When I first came here, in 1974, the leader of the Créditistes was Réal Caouette, a great Canadian political figure, and the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, John Diefenbaker, was still here. So were Mr. Stanfield, Tommy Douglas, Ed Broadbent and many others.
Even though some members of parliament do not accept the reality of two official languages in Canada, all the parties strongly support the spirit of the Official Languages Act.
During the eighties, I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House and I had the opportunity to take part in the constitutional debate. What was remarkable was the fact that all the members and all the parties in the House supported not only the enshrinement of fundamental rights in the Canadian Constitution, but also the enshrinement of the Official Languages Act itself. That act is truly part our Constitution.
I want to assure the member opposite and all the other members of this House that rejecting the motion proposed by the hon. member must not be perceived as rejecting the spirit of the Official Languages Act, because we in fact strongly support it.