House of Commons Hansard #97 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was competition.

Topics

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

On division.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare Motion No. 6 lost on division.

(Motion No. 6 negatived)

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-26, in Clause 18, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 22 the following:

“(2.1)(a) A body corporate referred to in subsection (3) shall comply within four years with Part V of the Official Languages Act and within seven years with Part VI of that Act.

(b) Air Canada and any other body corporate referred to in subsection (3) shall submit to the Treasury Board Secretariat an annual report containing the following data available to any Canadian citizen:

(i) the total number of English-speaking and French-speaking employees of the body corporate;

(ii) the number of English-speaking and French-speaking employees among management, pilots, flight attendants, mechanics and other employees of the body corporate;

(iii) the number, which cannot exceed 5% of the total number of employees of the body corporate, of employees who belong to the category “language unknown”.

(c) The Commissioner of Official Languages may investigate any complaint relating to the delay to comply with Part VI of the Official Languages Act referred to in paragraph (a) and the result of the investigation, if it relates to the information referred to in paragraph (b), shall take precedence over the provisions of paragraph (b).

(d) In case of failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph (a) dealing with the delay to comply with Part VI of the Official Languages Act, the Governor in Council shall, before making a decision regarding measures to be taken to remedy the situation, consult with persons in the official language group adversely affected by that failure to comply.

(e) Within one year following the coming into force of this Act, the following documents shall be made available by Air Canada in the English and French languages and have equal force of law:

(i) the Flight Operations Manual;

(ii) the standard operating procedures;

(iii) Flight Attendant Manual:

(iv) memoranda;

(v) administrative policies;

(vi) contracts of employments.”

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to a group of workers from the airline industry who have been fighting since 1976 to make sure francophones in Canada have equal opportunities in this area.

I am referring of course to a group called the Association des gens de l'air du Québec, which was created in 1976, following a battle that begun in 1975, to allow a francophone pilot, in his cockpit, to speak French with an air traffic controller in an airport control tower or in an air traffic control centre.

Members will recall that the association won its fight, because it was proven that having two francophones speaking French to each other does not jeopardize air safety.

Members will also recall that two anglophone unions, CALPA and CATCA, fought tooth and nail against that measure. I remember they both fought hard. But the government of the day agreed to amend the act to allow two francophones to have the right to speak to each other in their language.

We Bloc Quebecois members often hear it said in the House that this country, Canada, is ours, that as francophones, we can express our views, that we have the same rights as anglophones. This is constantly being pounded into us.

I remember how, three days before the last referendum, in 1995, many western Canadians made the trip to Montreal's Place du Canada, having paid $99 return for a Canadian Airlines charter from Vancouver, to tell Quebecers that they loved them and urge them not to leave.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

David Collenette Liberal Don Valley East, ON

I love you.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

The Minister of Transport is professing his love for me. How perfect; he is shouting to me from across the floor that he loves me. If he wants to prove that he loves me or that he loves francophones, he should vote in favour of my amendment. I extend my hand to him—and I know that he is a reasonable man. He has a French-sounding name. We know that the name of the Minister of Transport, which I cannot say in the House, is Huguenot in origin, and that some of his ancestors are French.

In short, I think that the battle fought by Les Gens de l'air in 1976 is again deserving of support. I know that when the minister and the Canadian Alliance member address the House later on, they are going to make a short statement saying that they do not agree with the amendments. In any case, I heard my Alliance colleague's comments in the second group of amendments by the NDP. I am familiar with these amendments and I know that the Minister of Transport will be open and sensitive to these amendments and accordingly perhaps agree to our amendments.

I would ask the House to go a bit further. I recognize that the government has made an effort in Bill C-26. But I think that francophones should be given an equal chance, as the figures are not very eloquent. I do not know if the House is aware, but I inform it that today and at the end of 1999 and in early 2000, Canadian International had 1,258 pilots. Of this number, there were only 71 francophones, representing 5.8% of the pilot population. If it is acknowledged that francophones represent 24.8% of the Canadian population there should be something like 24.8% francophone pilots with our airlines.

I will quote from an editorial in Le Soleil of January 31, 1985. Although it was in 1985, it still is relevant. It was written by Roger Bellefeuille, and reads:

Francophones are entitled to their fair and reasonable share in what used to be known as Trans-Canada Airlines. Quebecers want to go off with the others, but not in second class seats.

In these remarks on an amendment that I am putting forward on official languages, I call on the common sense of the president of Air Canada, Robert Milton. He is an American working in Montreal who respects Canada's linguistic duality. I know that he is working to learn French and that he is very sensitive to the place francophones occupy in Canada and in his airlines.

I call on Mr. Milton, and say to him “When you, Mr. Milton, the president of the major airline that Air Canada has become, put your fist on the table and make a commitment to promote the employment of francophones, I want you to know that doing so carries a certain weight. To remind you of this, I am going to quote two of your predecessors”.

I will quote Claude Taylor, and then Pierre Jeanniot. Let us look at what Mr. Jeanniot had to say at the fifth convention of the Association des Gens de l'Air, in April 1980:

In order for Air Canada to be a truly Canadian company, we believe that Air Canada employees of both official language groups should reflect the community, the province and the country, both in their numbers and in their representativity within Air Canada.

These were the words of former Air Canada President Jeanniot.

Now let us look at what Claude Taylor, Air Canada President in 1981, had to say:

Air Canada acknowledges its vital role in maintaining national unity. This means, essentially, that its role is to bring Canadians closer to one another, to make it possible for them to meet each other, to communicate, to come to know each other, to understand what it is to be a Canadian. This is the area in which, in my opinion, we have had our greatest successes, the ones of which we are the most proud.

These two, both of whom have headed a major airline, Air Canada, acknowledge linguistic duality. This bill, in my opinion, offers us the opportunity to confirm it.

The situation is not all that rosy at the present time. I have already painted a picture of the situation with Canadian International. Let us now look at the francophone representation at Air Canada overall. In 1998, the percentage of francophones was at the same level as in 1978, with only 17% of all Air Canada employees speaking French. In 1998, the percentage for pilots was 15.8%. The number of French-speaking pilots required at Air Canada has not therefore been reached.

This is why I am calling upon the government to think seriously about the legislative amendments we are proposing in order to give our bill a little more teeth, so as to lend more weight to French in hiring, in maintenance manuals, to make more room for living and working in French within Air Canada.

I do not mean to say that there is any ill will. What I do mean is that it would be a good idea for a president, in this case Mr. Milton, to put his foot down and say “Now listen, there are 24.8% francophones in Canada; our francophone new graduates deserve to be given a chance”. The Cegep in Chicoutimi trains excellent pilots. I would point out in passing, that it costs $100,000 a year to train a young francophone man or woman. I think they are entitled to the hope of one day joining the ranks of Air Canada personnel. I trust that the government is going to think about this and pass our amendment with respect to the Official Languages Act.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport

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.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

On division.

(Motion No. 7 negatived)

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

David Collenette Liberal Don Valley East, ON

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

David Collenette Liberal Don Valley East, ON

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Shall we agree to call it 2 p.m. and begin the debate when Government Orders are resumed after question period?

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

National Police WeekStatements By Members

May 15th, 2000 / 1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Janko Peric Liberal Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate National Police Week we also celebrate the memory of police officers who have given their lives for us.

In my riding of Cambridge an inquest into the death of Constable Dave Nicholson who lost his life on August 12, 1998, while trying to save young Mark Gage from the speeding waters of the Grand River is a solemn reminder to all of us of the sacrifices police officers make.

Constable Nicholson's widow, Wendy, described her late husband as her hero in life, not death. These touching words are a fitting tribute to all fallen police officers and have been inscribed on the new Ontario Police Memorial in Toronto.

I encourage all Canadians to remember these heroes in life, not death, not only this week but every day of the year.