Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2005

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, with whom I work together on the Standing Committee on Transport.

In his comments, he mentioned that the status quo would be maintained in regard to the official languages. In light of his own demonstrated bilingualism, I would like to ask whether he thinks that this is enough under the circumstances. We know very well that Air Canada has been criticized on a number of occasions for failing to meet its obligations regarding the official languages of Canada. A number of examples have been cited, including in committee.

We must keep in mind the air liberalization agenda, which the government wants to apply to the air transport sector as well. Air Canada is the only company required to comply with the Official Languages Act, and the role that it plays will be diluted even more than it is now. Does my colleague not think that it would have been a good idea to take advantage of this bill in order to require other companies than just Air Canada to comply with official languages legislation? Since it was privatized, it has been playing an ever smaller role and it must compete with several American companies as the skies become increasingly open.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. As he well knows since we sit on the same committee, I am very concerned about bilingualism in the Canadian airline industry.

We must bear in mind, though, that this is not an omnibus bill. It deals with a very specific case, that of Air Canada, and the situation that prevails in the wake of its restructuring as a result of economic conditions over the last few years. This bill is aimed, therefore, at a particular case, that of Air Canada.

My colleague's other question had to do with bilingualism in all Canadian airlines. I would like to point out that Air Canada is able to provide bilingual service as a result of its history and the fact that it used to be a crown corporation subject to the Official Languages Act. It is the largest airline in Canada, and as such it sets an example for the others. In my view, it sets a good example. If we look at the market, we see that more and more airlines are providing bilingual service, especially when they serve Quebec.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that this bill is limited to one specific case. It ensures that Air Canada will remain bilingual, providing service in Canada in both official languages and setting an example to our other airlines.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to commend the member for his typically thoughtful and insightful speech on this issue. He has properly and persuasively commented on the wonderful linguistic duality that exists in Canada. He himself as a fluently bilingual individual represents the best that Canada has and certainly reflects the linguistic duality that is Canada.

I would like to ask the member with respect to his own constituency how he sees the value of this bill vis-à-vis his own constituents.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is an interesting one.

One of the competitive advantages that Air Canada offers in addition to the quality service it has been recognized for in North America in terms of its domestic service offerings and its international service offerings is its bilingual service. It is essential that this service continue.

Anything that bolsters the competitive advantage of Air Canada is good for my constituency. As I mentioned at the outset of my speech, a great many of my constituents work for Air Canada. My constituency borders on the airport in Montreal. Many of my constituents are bilingual Canadians, and anything that ensures the bilingual nature of Air Canada is good for them as employees. I believe that my constituents greatly welcome this legislation.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak on behalf of the official opposition in support of Bill C-47, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Basically Bill C-47 is an administrative response to the restructuring of Air Canada that took place last year. In that restructuring, Air Canada, a former crown corporation, became a subsidiary of ACE Aviation Holdings Inc.

Bill C-47 requires that the provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act in respect of the Official Languages Act and the location of Air Canada's head office in Montreal be applied also to ACE Aviation Holdings Inc.

Air Canada has never given any indication that it intends to abandon Montreal and a few months ago, the company signed a long-term lease in that city.

Air Canada, furthermore, views its language proficiency as a competitive advantage. Like Air Transat, Air Canada is a private sector airline with its head office in Montreal, its hub in Toronto and employees who strive to speak both of our official languages correctly.

Air Canada is committed to using both of Canada's official languages. It is also committed to remaining in Montreal.

The Conservative Party caucus is in favour of this bill because its spirit flows directly from subsection 91(i) of the Conservative Party of Canada Policy Declaration, which reads as follows:

A Conservative Government will support the Official Languages Act ensuring that English and French have equality of status and equal rights and privileges—

If English and French truly have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, these obligations must apply to the leading national air carrier, especially since it is the only one to offer service to many international destinations.

Finally, Bill C-47 is largely a housekeeping bill, its spirit flows from the Conservative Party of Canada Policy Declaration, and Air Canada is not opposed to it.

We will accordingly support Bill C-47.

This having been said, I wonder whether Air Canada's government relations department continues its enthusiastic support of the Liberal government.

Senator David Angus, a former Air Canada board member, has informed me that legislation such as the present bill would subject Air Canada to a much higher level of official languages compliance than what is required of Air Transat. He informed me that the difference between Air Transat's version of bilingualism and Air Canada's compliance with the Official Languages Act costs Air Canada some $11 million a year. Clearly, this issue falls within the expertise of the official languages committee, not the transport committee. It would be my recommendation that Bill C-47 be referred to that committee instead of the transport committee.

At the same time, given that virtually every current and former member of Air Canada's government relations team--let me repeat that every current and former member of Air Canada's government relations team--virtually every single one of them has worked either for a Liberal MP or for the Liberal Party during the last election. I can only assume that Robert Milton and Montie Brewer and Air Canada's senior management support Bill C-47.

As transport critic for the official opposition and a very frequent Air Canada passenger, I have official and unofficial contact with Air Canada at many different levels and I can say that its support of the Liberal government is truly bizarre.

Even as recently as October 31, Liberal Senator Percy Downe called on the Senate to examine current government imposed operating requirements on Air Canada. In particular, he is concerned that Air Canada serves Charlottetown from Montreal instead of Toronto. He told the press:

My inquiry will examine the current, government-imposed operating requirements on Air Canada and the responsibility and opportunity for the Government of Canada to impose additional conditions on Air Canada so all Canadians can enjoy reasonably comparable levels of air service at reasonably comparable levels of cost, no matter where they live.

His statement ignores the fact that Air Canada's Charlottetown service now flies from Montreal in accordance with the transport minister's advice that airlines concerned about high rent at Pearson airport move flights to Montreal. He also ignores the fact that WestJet now offers Toronto-Charlottetown non-stop service with much bigger planes than Air Canada offers.

Nonetheless, the Liberal senator argues, “It is entirely within the power of the federal government to impose service and operating conditions on Air Canada”. In fact, such is the Liberal Party's fascination with regulating Air Canada that in the past three years the airline has been mentioned by name in four separate government initiated bills, Bill C-38, Bill C-26, Bill C-44 and Bill C-47. The company has been mentioned by name in the House some 360 times since the 2000 election.

Based on statements made in the House by Liberal and NDP MPs, they want to tell Air Canada what planes to buy, where to maintain them, where to fly them, what ticket prices to charge, how to advertise and how to manage their businesses. Perhaps MPs with these concerns should go ahead and buy Air Canada stock. Personally, given that Air Canada is a private company, I believe that these decisions are best made by Air Canada management. As a result, I believe that Air Canada probably wants as little government attention as possible.

For example, in June 2003 after Air Canada's first Montreal-Beirut flight had taken off, the government cancelled Air Canada's permission to fly the route. Air Canada had promoted the route for several months and informed the government that the national airlines of France, Germany, Holland, Italy and the U.K. were all serving Beirut. Nonetheless, at the last minute the Liberal government cancelled the route, citing security concerns.

A similar situation happened this past July. The federal government had given Air Canada permission to operate Toronto-Calgary-Shanghai freighter service. At the time Air Canada did not have a suitable aircraft so it leased one from California based World Airways. Here it was following the lead of Canada's military, which leases Russian cargo planes to fly our troops and supplies overseas.

A couple of days before the first flight was to depart, Ajay K. Virmani, whose company Starjet flew the Prime Minister during the last election, complained. He said that Air Canada would compete unfairly against him on the Toronto-Calgary portion of that flight. The Minister of Transport ignored the fact that Air Canada is allowed to fly any size plane it wants on any route within Canada and agreed instead with the Prime Minister's friend. Air Canada was forced to cancel the Calgary stop on its flight to Shanghai as a result.

The cancellation of the Calgary stop on the Toronto-Shanghai service had negative financial consequences for Air Canada in the same way that the company was hurt by the previous decision to cancel the Montreal-Beirut service at the last minute.

However, when the Liberals do not directly target Air Canada, their ill-conceived policies can cost the airline significant amounts of money. For example, Air Canada's major hub is Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International Airport. Air Canada and its affiliate Jazz operate up to 660 daily flights and departures at Pearson airport, serving more than 100 destinations, representing approximately 35% of Air Canada's total operations.

From Pearson, Air Canada flies non-stop to three other continents, Asia, Europe and South America. In this respect, Air Canada's operations at Pearson compete directly against United's hub at Chicago O'Hare, Delta's hub at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson and those of Northwest Airlines at the Detroit Metro Airport.

When it comes to Air Canada's Toronto operations, the current Minister of Transport is Air Canada's arch-enemy. He is well aware that federal airport rents and charges together with federal agencies that use free space at Pearson have helped to make Pearson airport the most expensive airport in the world. However, he does not care. He thinks that airlines that are concerned about high rents and taxes at Pearson should fly instead to Montreal.

The transport minister wants us to believe that he has Air Canada's best interests at heart. However, on May 9 when he introduced a package to cut airport rents nationwide, he offered average savings of 52% to Canada's larger airports while only offering 6% to Pearson. This unfairness was underlined by the fact that while other airports faced an immediate rent reduction, Toronto's rent actually increased this year due to a requirement to repay the deferred costs of the SARS crisis of 2003.

Compounding the problem is the fact that when Delta sells a Peruvian customer a Lima-Frankfurt ticket, the routing goes via Delta's hub in Atlanta, which has one of the lowest landing fees of any major U.S. airport. If Air Canada sells the same passenger a Lima-Frankfurt ticket, the routing passes through the world's most expensive airport, Toronto Pearson.

Both Toronto Pearson and Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson are large well-run airports. However, this year Pearson will pay a staggering $144 million to Ottawa as a result of the transport minister's airport rent, airport taxes policy. On the other hand, Atlanta receives airport support of up to $47 million a year in grants from the U.S. government. The difference has a huge impact on landing fees, taxes and passenger traffic.

As Air Canada and Delta compete for the business of the Lima-Frankfurt traveller, both airlines have similar aircraft and similar costs. However, because of the difference in airport taxes, Air Canada either has to charge more to cover Toronto's high landing fees or make less profit in order to match Delta's price.

By continuing to ignore this situation, the Minister of Transport is delivering a slap in the face to Air Canada's 12,000 Toronto based employees and telling them, “You have to work harder for less so that Air Canada can pay my taxes and compete with foreign carriers”. Unfortunately, although the minister has been made aware of this problem several times, he has chosen to turn a deaf ear.

At transport committee on October 27, one week ago today, in response to yet another call for rent relief at Pearson airport, the minister said, “I have never met a normal person who has talked to me about airport rent unless they have a vested interest”.

I can tell this House that my office is aware of the following vested interests who have called for urgent rent relief in order to let Air Canada compete on a level playing field with its international competitors. They include: the Air Transport Association of Canada; the International Air Transport Association; the Association of Airline Representatives in Canada; the Canadian Airports Council; the Canadian Courier & Messenger Association; the Association of Canadian Travel Agencies; the Canadian International Freight Forwarders Association; the Greater Toronto Hotel Association; and the Tourism Industry Association of Canada.

However, seven significant non-vested interests have joined the call for rent relief as well. They include: the City of Toronto, including council and Liberal Mayor David Miller; the City of Toronto Economic Development Committee; the City of Brampton, Mayor Fennell; the Province of Ontario, including Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty; the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport; the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; the Toronto Board of Trade; the Brampton Board of Trade.

It appears there is no way at all to wake up the transport minister or to convince him to move forward to cut Toronto's rent. I want Canadians to understand that no one should be able to claim to be our national transportation minister while undermining the ability of a major Canadian international airline to compete against foreign carriers.

Let me be clear to this House and to all Canadians, a Conservative government would quickly deal with the tremendous unfairness and the oppressive rents that the federal Liberals are charging Air Canada's Toronto hub.

If Bill C-47 is the transport minister's idea of legislation to assist Air Canada, let me paint a very different picture.

A Conservative government would negotiate an open skies agreement with the United States with a view to promoting increased economic opportunities for Canadian air carriers. One way to do this would be for Canada and the U.S. to grant modified sixth freedom rights to each other's countries.

Modified sixth freedom is a way of describing the situation where a Vancouver passenger buys a Vancouver-Minneapolis round trip ticket on Northwest and a round trip Minneapolis-Montreal ticket also on Northwest and combines both tickets to fly Vancouver-Minneapolis-Montreal round trip.

The granting of sixth freedom rights is attractive because they do not require airlines to offer a single new flight, but offers them increasing flexibility to sell seats on any flights that they offer. For Air Canada, modified sixth freedoms would offer increased revenue opportunities in particular at its Toronto hub.

Like many major Canadian airports, Pearson has Canadian customs facilities as well as U.S. preclearance facilities. Typically, U.S. bound Canadians preclear U.S. customs before departure in Canada, but clear Canadian customs after they return to Canada. Often Canadian and American customs and immigration facilities are actually located side by side in the same airport. This operating reality means it would be theoretically possible for an airline passenger arriving in Toronto from Los Angeles to stay in the U.S. precleared in transit zone and board a connecting flight to New York on Air Canada without ever having to step foot on Canadian soil legally.

Given that Air Canada offers non-stop daily flights to 41 U.S. cities from Toronto, as compared to the 60 U.S. cities served by US Airways from Pittsburgh, granting Air Canada modified sixth freedom rights would allow it to make Toronto a mid-size U.S. hub almost immediately and with virtually no additional cost.

Given that the revenue calculations of Air Canada's 41 Toronto U.S. routes are based on transborder and U.S. international traffic, the income from exploiting its potential modified sixth freedom rights would go straight to the bottom line.

Further, given Toronto's geographic location and the impressive number of U.S. destinations that Air Canada serves from it, the potential economic benefit to Air Canada of modified sixth freedoms is quite significant.

Research was done last May by Professor Richard Janda and students Shy Kurtz and David Dubrovsky of McGill University Institute of Air and Space Law. They argue that for the top 15 U.S. domestic pairs, a routing via Toronto would be competitive with a routing via most U.S. domestic hubs. In other words, as a U.S. hub, Toronto would be competitive with Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis and Pittsburgh.

All that is required for this to happen and to move forward is a forward thinking negotiation and a dramatic reduction in airport rents that the Liberal government currently charges at Pearson airport. The Liberals prefer to see Pearson airport instead as a major cash cow to be exploited, while they take Toronto voters for granted. The Conservatives see Pearson as an engine for economic growth to be nurtured and built upon.

Bill C-47 would require Air Canada to offer bilingual service on all of its flights around the world. Air Canada management willingly embraces this initiative and sees its ability to serve customers in various languages as a competitive advantage, yet another way to lure international travellers to fly Air Canada. This is a positive thing. We have no problem with this as Conservatives. We embrace official bilingualism.

The global airline industry is intensely competitive. The impact of government policy on the major airports that airlines use as hubs cannot be understated. The fact that Amsterdam is served by flights from countries in South America that are not also served from Toronto is symbolic of the problem. Dutch government backed Schiphol airport in Amsterdam has some of the lowest fees in the world, while Toronto has the world's most expensive. This reality and aggressive marketing allowed KLM to profitably serve from Amsterdam destinations which are not flyable from Toronto due to government costs.

Through visionary thinking the Dutch government has positioned Amsterdam's Schiphol airport as a truly global gateway and a major engine for economic growth for its country. For example, the greater Toronto area has three times the population of greater Amsterdam, yet Amsterdam's Schiphol airport is significantly bigger than Pearson and handles nearly 50% more passengers. Amsterdam's airport has flights to 251 destinations, over 100 of which are outside of Europe. Pearson on the other hand has flights to 110 destinations, only 42 of which are outside of Canada and the United States.

I understand that the size of an airport and the number of flights it receives are dependent on a number of factors, such as geography, history and the economic development of the area. Nonetheless, forward thinking Dutch aviation policy has allowed Amsterdam to grow into the world's ninth busiest airport. This is particularly impressive when we realize how close it is to London Heathrow, Paris Charles de Gaulle, and Frankfurt, all of which are among the world's top eight busiest airports.

I would like to suggest that part of the reason Amsterdam's airport is so successful is that the Dutch government has been at the forefront of negotiating open skies agreements with other countries. In addition, the Dutch government sees Amsterdam airport as a major driver of that country's economy and that is reflected in various government policies which support the development of the airport.

This House will soon pass Bill C-47, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The Minister of Transport will be happy to see Air Canada providing bilingual service wherever in the world he flies.

In the meantime, this same minister must do everything he can to further the economic opportunities for Air Canada and the other Canadian airlines by enacting the measures proposed in this House. From Air Canada's perspective, the minister may well want to address this issue, but his progress to date has been less than impressive.

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

Madam Speaker, I have listened with much interest to the speech by our colleague from Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam. I would like to ask him a question. First, he says quite clearly that his party will be supporting Bill C-47. Now, that bill stipulates:

This enactment extends the application of the Official Languages Act to certain affiliates of Air Canada and deems the articles of ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. to include provisions respecting the location of its head office and the right of persons to communicate with that corporation in both official languages.

In my view, this is the important part of the bill. For some time, Air Canada was owned by the Canadian taxpayers. In 1988, when the Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney was in power, Air Canada was privatized.

As I listened to his speech, I noticed that he had done a lot of research. That was interesting. He spoke to us about Air Canada and almost all the airports in the world. He is indeed very familiar with this issue.

However, in all of the research that he passed on to us, I heard no complaint about Air Canada’s failure to respect the official languages. A published report mentions the ten institutions—including departments and other institutions—that are most often cited, that is, those that receive the most complaints. The company that heads the list is Air Canada. It is curious that his speech made no mention of the complaints about Air Canada and its failure to comply with the Official Languages Act, and its continuing failure to comply. Yet it is a Canadian company which is obliged to operate under the Official Languages Act.

I agree with my colleague when he says that the Conservative Party respects the official languages and will be supporting Bill C-47.

In his speech he spoke of how badly the government is behaving in this regard. Naturally I am not taking the government’s side on this subject. He also said that the government wants to interfere with Air Canada. Yet he said nothing about how Air Canada has not respected and continues not to respect the official languages. That is why it is so important to be in favour of Bill C-47. For it is Air Canada that most contravenes the provisions of the Official Languages Act in Canada. It is the company that receives the most complaints, and does so continually.

So I would like to hear his opinion on this.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, when my colleague make a blanket statement that Air Canada is not abiding by the Official Languages Act, I do not think that statement in its totality is quite true.

Air Canada receives the most complaints about not complying with the Official Languages Act ,certainly in his home province of New Brunswick and in parts of Quebec, principally because 65% of all flights in this country are Air Canada flights. Whenever we hear a plane flying overhead, no matter where we are in this country, odds are that two out of three of those flights are Air Canada. Because of the volume of all air traffic in this country that is constituted by Air Canada traffic, of course it will have the most complaints, more than any other carrier, but that does not mean it is not abiding by the Official Languages Act.

Abiding by the Official Languages Act right now is costing Air Canada anywhere between $10 million to $12 million a year in terms of compliance. I have heard the complaints raised by members of the Bloc and by the member and, most important, the complaints raised by the Canadian people through the Official Languages Commissioner about Air Canada not abiding by the Official Languages Act.

However I do not think the problem is with Air Canada. I think the problem is that the Liberal government is not enforcing the regulations that it set out. This happens over and over again in all sorts of areas that we see in aviation policy and so on.

It goes too far to say that Air Canada is not abiding by the Official Languages Act. It may make mistakes and may not be doing its due diligence in certain circumstances but should it be held accountable to the standards imposed on it by law? That is certainly the case.

If he believes, as I do, that Canada is a country where two official languages co-exist, and that the House of Commons and the government ought to respect those two languages, the question that ought to be asked is this: why is there a standard for official languages for Air Canada when there is none for CanJet, for example? CanJet works out of Montreal and is not subjected to the standard on official languages. The same goes for WestJet, which operates daily in Quebec and in his province of New Brunswick. These airlines are not required to provide services in French. Only Air Canada is.

If we really believe in the official language policies of this country, we should be holding everyone to the same standard. The Conservative Party believes in the official bilingualism reality of this country and we support the Official Languages Act. We support Bill C-47 but we also support a government that applies regulations equally across the air industry and that is not what we are seeing from the government.

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

Madam Speaker, it is true that only Air Canada is subjected to the Official Languages Act, not the other carriers, but we cannot compare Air Canada with CanJet or WestJet because CanJet and WestJet do not come under the regulations of the Official Languages Act.

It was the Conservative Party that privatized Air Canada in 1988 but it did not pass any bill at that time to ensure that all air carriers in Canada had to be bilingual. When I said that most complaints were about Air Canada, I was comparing it to a federal institution, not other carriers. As a carrier that is under the Official Languages Act, it is the one that receives the most complaints because it does not comply with the laws of this country.

I listened to the member very carefully and felt he had some good documentation. However I do not agree with supporting Air Canada if it continues to violate the law by not offering bilingual services. This is not only the case in New Brunswick and Quebec. What about those people who leave the east coast or Quebec and go to work in Alberta? That is what our country is all about. The Official Languages Act is not only for the Atlantic provinces and for Quebec, it is for all of Canada from coast to coast to coast.

I have no respect for Air Canada because it has violated and it continues to violate the Official Languages Act. The people who bought Air Canada did not have to buy it but when they did decide to buy it they knew that one of the rules was that they had to respect the Official Languages Act. However Air Canada has not respected the law for the last 30 years and it continues to not respect the law.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response but I think the member is using hyperbolic language when he says that Air Canada has never respected the law. It is not true. Does it have its violations? Yes, it does and those have been made very public. Does the Conservative Party support people breaking the law? Of course we do not. I think it goes without saying that no member in the House supports people breaking the law.

If the member really believes in this, then I look forward to his party standing up at the transport committee or the official languages committee, which we have recommended the bill be referred to, and offer up some amendments in order to make the bill tougher.

Bill C-47 is the government's own legislation that deals with official bilingualism with regard to Air Canada or the air industry in any regard whatsoever. If the member believes in amending it, in making penalties tougher, in expanding its purview, in making the requirements more stringent and in all the things that he is saying, I would encourage him, his party and his transport critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, to show up at the transport committee, instead of just coming into the House and making his points, as he did, which are certainly with principle and with clarity, and actually walk their talk.

I encourage the member opposite and his party to put forward some concrete amendments. They should take pen and paper, write some amendments down and bring them to the transport committee. We will discuss them and if he sees a purpose for this legislation, we, as Conservatives who believe in official bilingualism and who believe in this legislation, are certainly prepared to entertain that and to make it happen.

I want to make mention of one thing though. The member said, I think with some disdain, that the previous Conservative government privatized Air Canada and since then we have had all kinds of problems. The truth is that Air Canada's privatization has been a massive success for this country. More people are flying today than ever before and they are doing it with more choice, more opportunity, more freedom, more frequency and at lower prices than ever before. Air liberalization has worked for Canada. It was our idea and we are proud of it, and we are continuing to build on it.

As a Conservative government we will expand our open skies and give Canadians even more choice.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today. Since my election to the House of Commons, I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, so I am particularly concerned about this bill.

We are, as you know, at the second reading stage of this bill, which amends the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

The Bloc Québécois feels that, regardless of its legal structure, Air Canada must be subject to three conditions: a maintenance centre must continue to be located in Montreal; it must continue to have its head office in Montreal; the Official Languages Act must continue to apply to its airline activities. Since this bill sets out some of these obligations, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of it in principle. We do, however, regret certain shortcomings, which may be remedied during the committee study.

I will not go into all the details on the bill, as my colleagues have already done so. I would just like to give a brief historical overview of Air Canada as a company.

An article in La Presse in late November 2004 reported on the sad state of our national air carrier. It reminded readers of the Air Canada ad campaign that ran during the Athens Olympics last year. Hon. members will recall the bicycle racer with a squeaky wheel, who is helped out by a Greek grandmother with some olive oil—a rather unfortunate image for an airline on the verge of bankruptcy. The message sent by the ad was, overall, a somewhat honest one. It was as if Air Canada were saying “We can bounce back. With a bit of imagination, we can accomplish great things”. That was the gist of it, and it was a pretty good reflection of the reality of our national carrier as reported by La Presse .

Air Canada was waiting for a miracle. However, we must remember that this miracle came at the expense of numerous jobs sacrificed in the recovery plan. Today, if you lose one of your bags or a package on an Air Canada flight, do not be surprised if the representative you speak to is working in an office in India. Since late 2004, WNS Global Services, of Bombay, has taken over from the 52 agents responsible for finding lost bags and packages. This company is replacing employees who, until then, worked in the Air Canada offices on Maisonneuve boulevard in Montreal. As I said earlier, the miracle came at a price, and the workers in Montreal were the ones who had to pay it. The workers affected by international subcontracting—offshoring, as we call it—will be able to continue to work for the Montreal carrier. Air Canada has offered them jobs at the Dorval airport or with its cargo service. Here again, Air Canada has opened the door to a transfer of jobs outside Montreal or even Canada.

On the other hand, early this spring, Air Canada announced some good news. Since May, Air Canada Technical Services has been responsible for maintaining Delta Air Lines' 200 Boeing 757s and 767s. This five-year $300 million U.S. contract will create approximately 300 jobs in Vancouver. It was the second largest contract in three months for this now autonomous entity following Air Canada's restructuring.

On December 13, Air Canada Technical Services announced its largest maintenance contract since the airline emerged from bankruptcy protection. This is a non-exclusive five-year agreement with International Lease Finance Corporation. Under the service contract, the financial details of which have not been disclosed, ACTS is responsible for maintaining the components, reactors and landing gear on the fleet of Boeing 737s and 767s and Airbus A320s, A330s and A340s belonging to the largest aircraft rental company in the world. ILFC has a fleet of nearly 700 aircraft.

Yesterday, the media reported that Air Canada is likely the most profitable airline in North America. Earnings by ACE Aviation, the holding company for Air Canada, Air Jazz and Aeroplan, reached $270 million from June to September inclusively. This represents a turnaround over the $81 million loss during the same quarter the previous year.

In comparison, the other major airlines on this continent have quarterly deficits varying between tens of millions of U.S. dollars and a billion dollars in the case of United Airlines.

The Bloc Québécois is very happy with how well Air Canada is doing. There are several reasons why we are eager for it to survive and be successful.

In 1988-89, the federal government deregulated the air industry and Air Canada was privatized through the Air Canada Public Participation Act and the sale of the Canadian government's shares in Air Canada.

At the time of its privatization, Air Canada had a number of obligations required of it under the act in view of the importance of maintaining the official languages rights of Canadians and Air Canada employees and also in view of its previous status as a crown corporation. Provisions were included to ensure that Air Canada continued to comply with the linguistic requirements in the Official Languages Act and continued to have its headquarters in Montreal.

There was an article in Le Soleil last November 26 stating that in view of the steady stream of complaints about its compliance with the Official Languages Act, Air Canada was asking the federal government for financial assistance to help it meet its bilingual obligations. Ottawa's response was not long in coming. The main airline in the country would have to get by on its own.

Mr. Duncan Dee, the company's vice-president of corporate affairs, appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages of the House of Commons in the fall of 2004. He said: “It is difficult to accept that we are considered a federal institution for the purposes of enforcement and regulation but not for the purposes of access to financial resources to get the job done”.

We know that discussions are underway with the U.S. government with a view toward further liberalization of the skies. For example, American airlines would be allowed to fly between their country, Quebec and Canada, and another country. Air Canada's traditional role of providing Canadians with flights in both official languages would be diluted even more than it is today.

The witnesses heard during the hearings on open skies said, with various degrees of conviction, that all airlines should have the same obligations to provide service in both languages.

In regard to the Air Canada arrangements, the holding company, ACE Aviation Inc., is required to keep its headquarters in the Montreal metropolitan area as well as its maintenance centres in Montreal, Winnipeg and Mississauga. We feel that this legislative protection is not very strong. There does not seem to be anything that would prevent Air Canada from eventually changing its statutes to get out of its official languages obligations and obligation to keep its headquarters in Montreal. Eventual legal conflicts could be avoided if this were specified in the bill.

Furthermore, since the advent of Air Canada Technical Services as a limited partnership, the requirement that Air Canada keep a maintenance centre in Montreal rings hollow because Air Canada Technical Services is under no such obligation. Ultimately, all the provisions on keeping headquarters in Montreal can easily be circumvented.

It would be advisable to find ways of strengthening these provisions to ensure that they are effective.

We support this bill but obviously we would like to be sure that it really means something.

[Roger Clavet, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for his intervention on this bill, which may be worthwhile, as has just been mentioned, on the condition that Air Canada meets its obligations, in particular its language obligations.

We parliamentarians often have to travel, in Quebec and Canada—pretty well all over. We often see that Air Canada has a very hard time meeting its language obligations. My colleagues and other members of this House will agree that it is hard to get proper treatment in one's own language.

French is sometimes recorded. The crew tell us they do not speak French properly or try to convince us they do. Has my colleague had this experience with flight attendants?

It is essential to at least be able to speak properly in one of the two official languages. In Quebec, the language is French. In our opinion, we have to be able to take a plane and be served in the language of our choice. That applies to Quebec and to Canada in the case of minority language communities. It would be common decency on the part of the government to pressure Air Canada to meet its obligations under the Official Languages Act. Canada has in fact signed an agreement in this regard and has linguistic obligations.

I know how interested my colleague is in transportation issues. He has obviously spoken about them to the Minister of Transport, who should also oversee the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians in the area of transport.

Would it not be possible in what has been proposed to call for greater respect of Canada's language obligations, as this is true for all airports? Airlines such as Air Canada appear to take a certain wicked pleasure in saying that there are, finally, two official languages in Canada, but one of them always seems a little more official.

I would like to hear what my colleague from Alfred-Pellan has to say.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for his excellent question.

As was already mentioned, the government is not showing consistency by forcing Air Canada to respect both official languages, but not providing that company with the budget or subsidies that would allow it to provide services in those two languages.

Therefore, it is not surprising that Air Canada would downplay its obligations to respect our two official languages.

All my colleagues frequently notice that, as soon as we travel outside Quebec, French is the language most often forgotten, because it is harder to find bilingual employees in certain regions of Canada. If the government showed true leadership when it comes to respecting the Official Languages Act, it would give Air Canada a substantial subsidy to allow it to respect this legislation. By refusing to give the company any additional subsidy, the government is sending the message that, if Air Canada can respect the act, fine; otherwise, it can let things slide a little bit.

In any case, what is most important is not to target only Air Canada. We have noticed that, following the changes that are currently taking place in the airline industry, Air Canada will reduce all its air services. Therefore, if it is serious about the obligation to respect our two official languages, the government should extend the scope of the Official Languages Act to all airline companies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-47. We can see that the opposition and the government agree on this bill. We should pass it at third reading and send it to the Senate as soon as possible in order to have legislation enacted for Air Canada to respect the official languages.

It is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-47, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act, tabled at the beginning of May by the Minister of Transport.

Trans-Canada Airlines was established by Parliament on April 10, 1937 as the national airline to provide essential air transportation, cargo and mail services across Canada. Since 1969 Air Canada has been subject to the Official Languages Act.

During 1988 and 1989 Air Canada was privatized under the authority of the Air Canada Public Participation Act and through the sale of the Government of Canada's share in the air carrier. Upon privatization certain obligations were imposed on Air Canada through the act in recognition of the importance to preserve official language rights for the Canadian public and Air Canada's employees, and because of the history of the federal crown corporation.

In early 2000 Air Canada acquired Canadian Airlines and to protect public interest, Parliament passed legislation that included amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act and imposed an obligation on Air Canada to ensure that its air service subsidiaries, such as Jazz and Zip, would comply with part IV of the Official Languages Act by providing service to the public in both official languages. Since those transactions, the Commissioner of Official Languages has received many complaints about Air Canada and the bilingual services of its subsidiaries.

After the September 11 terrorist attack, Air Canada had many problems and filed for bankruptcy protection on April 1, 2003. After 18 months of restructuring, the company emerged from bankruptcy protection on September 30, 2004.

On September 30, 2004, ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. became the parent company of Air Canada and all of its subsidiaries. In addition to Air Canada, ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. also took control over Aeroplan, Jazz, Destina and Air Canada Vacations.

As a component of its restructuring, a new corporate structure came into effect on October 1, 2004. The new structure is intended to promote improvements in productivity and efficiency, and facilitate future equity investment.

Air Canada has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of a newly created parent company, ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. In addition, several previous internal divisions and former subsidiaries of Air Canada have been spun off into a limited partnership under the direct or indirect control of ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. Right now, ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. is not covered by the official languages obligation or requirements related to the head office location.

Bill C-47 stipulates in clause 10.3:

The articles of ACE Aviation Holdings Inc., a body corporate incorporated on June 29, 2004 under the Canada Business Corporations Act, are deemed to contain:

(a) provisions requiring ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. to ensure that any member of the public can communicate in either official language with and obtain available services from its head office, and any of its other offices or facilities where there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office or facility in both official languages, having regard to the public served; and

(b) provisions specifying that the head office of ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. is to be situated in the Greater Montreal area.

For that matter, the NDP understands why the federal government has introduced this bill to rectify the situation. We generally agree with the spirit of this bill.

Nonetheless, Aeroplan, an Air Canada subsidiary, offers travel bonuses, privileges and rewards for heavy travellers. This subsidiary is exempt from the Official Languages Act since it does not provide “air services, including incidental services” under section 10(10) of the Act. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Dyane Adam, seems to think that Aeroplan is subject to the Official Languages Act. This matter is currently before the courts.

I realize this bill still targets only Air Canada and its subsidiaries. Why not expand the parameters and apply the same rules to all the air carriers in the country and make it a uniform requirement?

Another point I want to raise is the fact that Air Canada is very slow to provide training to its staff when there is demand for bilingual services in a given region. Air Canada argues that it is waiting for special funding from the federal government allocated specifically for such bilingual training. The government and Air Canada have taken a wait and see attitude as to who will react first. In the meantime, travellers are being denied an essential service.

As I said earlier, the Commissioner of Official Languages has been receiving a lot of complaints about Air Canada's bilingual services. In 2001, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages which studied many of these complaints.

For more than 30 years now, successive Commissioners of Official Languages have reported on the shortcomings of Air Canada with respect to its obligations and its lack of cooperation in response to complaints.

Following these complaints, the government has introduced a number of amendments to update the Air Canada Public Participation Act. These amendments will extend to the former internal divisions of Air Canada. Some of those obligations, as well as the requirement to keep Air Canada's head office in Montreal, will apply to ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. as the parent company of Air Canada.

The government has received ample notice on this issue. The Commissioner of Official Languages stated in 2003: “For me, it is important that, regardless of the changes that may occur in the coming months involving Air Canada, there be no diminution of the language rights of the travelling Canadian public.”

Also, the former Minister of Transport, David Collenette, stated in April 2003: “We totally and unequivocally support the Official Languages Act and its application to the national transportation system, and in particular to Air Canada.”

Here we are in 2005 and today we are once more talking about Air Canada, a company that is subject to the Official Languages Act and the one that has received the highest number of complaints in Canada.

We have here statistics from the period April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005, which show Air Canada in first place with regard to complaints. They received 84 complaints, 77 of which are under investigation. Five were well founded and one was unfounded. So there were six complaints on which the investigations have been completed and five out of the six were justified.

I do not think we are talking through our hat. In fact, an article stated that Air Canada had appeared before the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The Quebec National Assembly is also scheduled today to consider a motion by the Liberal Party urging Ottawa to respect the linguistic balance in air transport in Canada. The Liberal Party of Quebec introduced this motion after l'Association des gens de l'air du Québec had submitted a complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages accusing Air Canada of contravening the Official Languages Act.

According to the association, which has released a damning document on the airline’s language practices, only 9% of the managers in charge of air transport activities are francophones. The president of the association, Serge Martel, talks of injustice and even claims that the situation has deteriorated over the past 20 years.

Air Canada has a subsidiary called Air Nova, which serves the Quebec regions and of which only 4% of the pilots are francophone. During this period, the number of francophone pilots has remained stagnant at 15% and the number of francophone employees at 17%. You will note that it does not work because Air Canada is not willing to respect the official languages.

I have in front of me the July 2002 edition of En route magazine. Complaints with respect to Air Canada have been filed with the Standing Committee on Official Languages. They have been discussed and studies have also been done.

I recall Robert Milton, the president and CEO of Air Canada. At the Standing Committee on Official Languages, one of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois suggested that, in the seat pockets aboard that carrier’s aircraft, there be a form which people could fill out if they had a complaint. The representatives of Air Canada were pleased with that suggestion.

On the president's page of the in flight magazine, Mr. Milton says, “Canada official languages, the choice is yours. The pleasure to serve is ours. Air Canada is pleased to offer you service in English and French”.

So we were able to find the complaint form in that little pocket. Then Air Canada began receiving complaints. Since the spring, however, I have found that form only once. I deliberately went from seat to seat, looking in the pockets, but I could not find it. Imagine how many complaints Air Canada would be receiving if these forms were at each seat and people were given the chance to file their complaint in writing.

So I wrote a letter to Air Canada, asking where their complaint forms had gone. Air Canada responded that it was sorry, but that it just so happened that I could not find any forms that day, and said the comments it was now receiving were about the good service it was providing. I would surely like to see all of those comments!

All the same, I could no longer find the little message about official languages in the enRoute magazine. So I filed a complaint. I asked where that message had gone, and I told Air Canada that if it wanted to comply with the Official Languages Act, the message had to be there. Air Canada replied with its apologies. The message has reappeared: it is now in the October 2005 issue.

It says, “Air Canada is pleased to offer your service in English and French”.

However, the “official languages” are no longer mentioned. The title “Official Languages of Canada” has disappeared.

About the official languages, it is gone from En Route. Does that mean it likes to service us in both languages, but it is not ready to follow the Official Languages Act? It goes further.

When Air Canada was privatized in 1988 and became a crown corporation, it knew that there was a law about this. What is more, the government required that services be offered in both official languages.

When you buy, you buy the whole package. Now, Air Canada says it can no longer be competitive. In a way, it is true that when the government merged Air Canada and Canadian, it could have established a program that might have helped it along in the area of the official languages. This was suggested in the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

It is true that Bill C-47 should go further and that all national carriers, going from one end of the country to the other, ought to be subject to the Official Languages Act.

I am not sure it is correct to say that, so far as competition is concerned, when a carrier complies with the Official Languages Act and provides services in both languages, more people or customers will make use of its services. If an air ticket from Bathurst to Ottawa costs $1,400 and the same ticket costs $500 at CanJet, it is my impression that, given the $900 difference, the official languages will not be a consideration that day. Now we are served one glass of pop and a cookie, and we can’t even talk to the attendant any more. And indeed, there is nothing to ask for. There are no more meals served. There is nothing now. Not even much communication.

Nonetheless, the basic covenants of our country must be respected. There are two official languages here in this country, and they have to be respected. That respect is lacking.

Take the Thibodeau case. He took the plane from Montreal to Ottawa and was sitting near the window. He asked the flight attendant for “une cannette de Seven-Up”. The attendant said, “I don't speak French”. He said again that he wanted “une cannette de Seven-Up”. . The word cannette sounds a lot like the word “can”. Insofar as Seven-Up is concerned, so far as I can see Seven means seven and Up means up. It sounds a lot like English. An argument broke out about this during the flight, and when the plane landed in Ottawa, the police were waiting for Mr. Thibodeau. He was arrested.

He took his case to the federal courts. When he won, Air Canada appealed the ruling in favour of its customer, Mr. Thibodeau. He argued but did not fight with the attendant. His wife was sitting on the aisle and he was by the window. He just argued for his rights. In addition, three-quarters of what he said was in English. The police arrested him when he got off the plane in Ottawa. This was a flight from Montreal to Ottawa, not a flight to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or British Columbia. It was here. This shows Air Canada's lack of respect for our country's two official languages.

It is time for this Parliament to pass Bill C-47 as quickly as possible. It is time for the Canadian government to tell Air Canada, “Enough is enough. You are going to stop breaking the law. You are going to comply with the Official Languages Act, both ways”. An anglophone from Vancouver who is flying to Montreal has the right to be served in his mother tongue just as does a francophone flying from New Brunswick or Quebec to Vancouver.

For the record, let us look at what is happening in British Columbia. There are more francophones there than ever. French has become an important language in British Columbia. It is the same in Alberta. As a result of our country's economy, people are leaving Quebec and New Brunswick and going to Alberta to work. Francophones are moving, as they say, from sea to sea.

All we ask is that Air Canada stop some of its actions that are in violation of the Official Languages Act. The Liberal government has a responsibility to ensure that the act is upheld. Bill C-47 must be passed as quickly as possible to tell Air Canada once and for all that it must respect both the official languages of our country .

[Roger Clavet, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for his enthusiasm. Each time we talk about the rights of French language minority groups, he does not just give a speech, he speaks with enthusiasm and honesty. Based on his and all our experience, we all still feel as if the francophones of this country are second class citizens.

Imagine people who cannot speak the other official language. It still happens since we cannot blame people for not speaking English. They travel from somewhere in Acadia, Quebec or Ontario and have trouble being served in their language.

I want to ask my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst the following question. Does he believe that this bill has the potential to provide even greater protection for linguistic progress, since this issue affects him and numerous Quebeckers and Canadians across Canada? Could we ask the legislator to make this bill even tougher to ensure respect for the francophones right here?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. Earlier, I listened to the speech of Conservative members who spoke in support of the people in the Atlantic and Quebec regions.

I do not intend to get away from the hon. member's question. I will answer it, but first I would like to give an example.

About three weeks ago, I arrived in Moncton around 9 p.m. Here, I do not want to blame the flight attendant, who is not responsible for his schedule, since it is Air Canada that establishes it. That flight attendant did not speak a word of French. I decided to speak in French to see where this would take me. Finally, when I was getting off the aircraft, I dealt with a person who was not wearing a uniform, which means that this person was no longer on duty. That person had to fill in for the flight attendant by speaking to me in French. In other words, that person volunteered for Air Canada. However, had that person already left Moncton airport, it would have been impossible for me to get served in French. I reported this incident to the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Earlier, I mentioned the incident involving a can of Seven Up. It happened between Montreal and Ottawa. If hon. members take a flight between Montreal and Toronto, they will see for themselves. It is obvious. The act could go further if we really want the two official languages to be respected in our country. As for airlines, this legislation should be extended to all other carriers, so as to create a level playing field in this regard. I think this would really be good.

Antonine Maillet once said that we do not want to turn English people into French people, nor do we want to turn French people into English people. We simply want the service. There are people who can get in and provide that service. There should be room for everyone. There are jobs within the government administration that involve dealing with the public, but that are in areas where employees do not have to use both languages. However, if employees are in contact with the public, they should be able to provide the service in both official languages. That is the government's responsibility.

So, during its review of the bill, the Committee on Transport will have to strengthen it by extending its scope to other airlines, so that everyone get equal treatment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declared the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-54, An Act to provide first nations with the option of managing and regulating oil and gas exploration and exploitation and of receiving moneys otherwise held for them by Canada, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.