Mauril Bélanger

[Official Languages, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, during the 2006 census, an anonymous email went around encouraging francophones to say they could not speak English even if they could.

At the time, heads of francophone organizations across the country told their members to respond truthfully and we have every reason to think that they did.

Four years later, the Ottawa Citizen is trying to stir up controversy. The face of Canada's francophone population is changing thanks to newcomers whose first official spoken language is French, even though it is not necessarily their mother tongue and they do not speak English.

In response to the Ottawa Citizen article, representatives from Statistics Canada have said that they never talked about a conspiracy or suggested that francophones had lied in providing census information. They also suggested that factors other than the anonymous email might explain the decrease in the number of bilingual francophones in the country between 2001 and 2006.

[Points of Order, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do not often take the floor for this kind of debate. In fact, I believe this is the first time. I listened closely to what the members said. It all began with a statement that a Conservative Party member made before question period. Then several other things were brought into the conversation.

You have already ruled that a certain expression should no longer be used. I supported and applauded the member for Beauport—Limoilou when she raised the matter the first time. I feel that I must support the Bloc members, who say that when they voted against a particular bill, it was not because they were against protecting women and children. There was a legitimate difference of opinion on the value of adding a sentence, which is what the bill set out to do.

I find that people sometimes stray from the truth. I understand that this is political jousting, but members should all demonstrate decency and respect toward their colleagues in the House. That is what Canadians expect of us.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to ensure that members of all parties show greater respect for one another even if they disagree. I often disagree with the member for Saint Boniface, but that is no reason to call her names, as some members did. That is out of line. We all need to do a little better than that.

[Citizenship Act, May 26th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have seconded this bill because it goes some way toward solving some problems that were created as a result of the adoption of Bill C-37 which came into effect in April 2009. Law making is sometimes extremely complicated and there are unintended consequences and we are seeing some here at different levels.

The first level which Bill C-467 presented by my colleague from Vancouver South addresses is the most urgent and most obvious one. It is the fact that people who have had children while serving their country abroad and whose children are now having children of their own, those children cannot be Canadian citizens. That is nonsense. The riding which I have the honour of representing is in Ottawa. One would expect there would be a number of people living in my riding and throughout the city who have served our country abroad in the Department of Foreign Affairs, for instance, and who are now in this situation.

I know two ambassadors who have had children while serving abroad. In the first case, one of his sons is now working in the private sector in a bank in Paris. He and his wife are going to have their third child. The first two children, from the same father and mother, are Canadian citizens, but the third one, if the child is born in Paris, will not be a Canadian citizen if born there. The third grandchild of the man who served his country abroad, born from the same parents, cannot be a Canadian citizen. It is nonsense. Another well-known ambassador who served this country with great distinction has a daughter in Great Britain who cannot have children who will be Canadian citizens.

That is the first obvious unintended consequence of Bill C-37 that has to be fixed. I applaud my colleague's initiative. I hope that even if the government seems to have some hesitation about some technicalities it is concerned with, that we can see our way to at least adopting that.

The second level of complication was brought up by the member for Trinity—Spadina and I concur with her. Canada as a trading nation has to consider going beyond this bill. I have legislation on the books, Bill C-443, which addresses that. It deals with the fact that there are a number of Canadian citizens working abroad, for the United Nations or its agencies and for NGOs, and heaven knows, we fund them through CIDA. These are honourable, respected NGOs such as Médecins Sans Frontières. A number of them are associated with religious groups. A number of Canadians are serving the interests of their country through these organizations and they are going to get caught in the same situation.

That is the second level of complication that I hope we will address some day. I hope the government is paying attention to this. Whether we can do it through amendments to this piece of legislation or not remains to be seen.

The third one is the very dramatic situation where we will be creating stateless children. That can be an incredibly complicated situation for anyone.

These are some of the unintended consequences of the legislation that came into effect last year which I believe have to be addressed. The first one is being addressed through the legislation proposed by my colleague from Vancouver South and I hope we will see fit to pass it quickly.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 26th, 2010]

With respect to the advertising to promote the government’s Economic Action Plan, following the introduction of the 2009-2010 Budget, how much was spent in 2009-2010 on advertisements carried by: (a) radio stations belonging to the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada; (b) community television channels; and (c) media belonging to the Association de la presse francophone?

[Petitions, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by dozens of Canadian citizens who live on both sides of the river in the National Capital Region, that is, in the Outaouais and in Ontario. They are calling on the government to create a special immigration measure allowing Canadian citizens and permanent residents to sponsor family members who were personally and directly affected by the earthquake in Haiti on January 12, 2010. They are also asking the government to show more flexibility in its definition of the people who can be included in the family class, particularly concerning age.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that Air Canada—just like VIA Rail, which has the same obligation—must ensure, first and foremost, that its passengers are taken to destination safely. This implies the ability to communicate with passengers, with its clients, not only through videos, as is sometimes the case, but in person if an unforeseen situation occurs. This means that there must be staff members on board who speak English and French.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, any airline in Canada is required to provide safety instructions in both languages, whether it is Air Canada, Porter or any other company. All are required to do that. That said, I agree with the hon. member that any business that uses the word “Canada” in its name, and particularly Air Canada, should meet its linguistic obligations. That was the case when Air Canada was privatized. This requirement reflects the Canadian linguistic duality.

Therefore, it is perfectly normal that the legal vacuum that has existed since Air Canada's internal restructuring be corrected. We must pass legislation to monitor ACE Inc. and its subsidiaries, and also the partners of these subsidiaries that provide services to the travelling public, and we must also ensure that the latter are well aware of their legal obligation to provide their services in English and in French.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, I would have answered that the Conservative government seemed as quick as the previous Liberal government to act, considering that something needs to be done. However, for the past two years we have been hoping for a bill that is not coming. Therefore, it is important that the committee make a decision. And I hope that the House will also do so. If that is the will of this House, then it should ask the government to introduce a bill. We hope that the government will quickly comply with that wish, so that we can deal with this issue, because it is long overdue.

I want to thank my colleagues from all the parties, particularly the member for Rivière-du-Nord and the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who both sit on the committee, and also other members for their critical but constructive support regarding this issue. It is a very important matter, because every year Air Canada is the target of the largest number of complaints to the Commissioner of Official Languages.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as per the notice of motion that you have just read, which was presented to the House on April 19, I move, seconded by my colleague from Hull—Aylmer, that the first report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages be concurred in.

This short report contains a motion moved by our colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord. It is asking the government, specifically the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to introduce a bill regarding the application of the Official Languages Act to Air Canada, its subsidiaries and partners so that the committee may study the bill this spring. That is the essence of this report. The committee felt that this matter was urgent enough to encourage the government to introduce such a bill this spring so that it can be studied in committee.

This is very timely. My colleagues all know that yesterday the official languages commissioner, an officer of Parliament, tabled his fourth report, which at times is quite critical of the government. The report refers to the laissez-faire approach by the Treasury Board Secretariat, which has a key role in the government’s official languages policy. The Treasury Board Secretariat is supposed to play a leadership role for the government when it comes to language policy but seems to have completely abandoned the job. Among other things, the report also mentioned the difficulties experienced by certain official language minority community organizations.

But I want to return to last year’s report, which referred in particular to Air Canada and recommended that the government take immediate action to introduce an appropriate bill.

A bit of the historical background might help people understand why the situation is so urgent.

Air Canada used to be a crown corporation, but in 1988 it was privatized. At the time, its linguistic obligations were maintained by Parliament, which even specified a little later, in 2000, that these obligations applied as well to Air Canada subsidiaries and any airlines it acquired.

In 2003, Air Canada was forced to seek protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and underwent a restructuring process. We all know how that turned out. The restructuring resulted in a regulatory vacuum regarding Air Canada’s linguistic obligations because ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. took over 75% ownership of the company. In addition, some of its former subsidiaries, specifically Air Canada Jazz and Aeroplan, became limited partnerships, responsible henceforth to ACE and not Air Canada. As a result, Air Canada Jazz, for example, could say it was not subject to the Official Languages Act.

Three times Canadian governments tried to make legislative changes spelling out the linguistic obligations of Air Canada and other subsidiaries of ACE, but every time the bills died on the order paper.

The first bill was introduced in 2005 by then minister Jean Lapierre. It died on the order paper. In 2006, another bill was introduced under the new government by the minister who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Then another bill was tabled in 2007, so far as I remember. Three attempts were made, therefore, to clarify the situation. None were successful, though, all of them dying on the order paper.

In 2007, the situation became even more complicated because ACE, the umbrella company, liquidated Air Canada Jazz and Aeroplan shares. As I mentioned, the two former subsidiaries are now held independently by two separate income trusts. Air Canada Jazz and Aeroplan are therefore no longer either Air Canada subsidiaries or even companies whose shares are held by the majority shareholder in Air Canada. The situation has therefore become even more complicated and the regulatory vacuum has worsened. That is why it is so urgent to take quick action.

As I mentioned, the Commissioner of Official Languages commented on this last year in his report—I think an entire chapter was devoted to it—and specifically recommended that the government bring forward new legislation to clarify this situation and ensure that Air Canada, its subsidiaries and partners—that is, any companies and individuals with whom it may contract to provide services—must meet all linguistic obligations that would normally apply.

People have often wondered if Air Canada should continue to be subject to these obligations.

On April 13 when representatives of Air Canada came before committee they hinted at that matter. One of the representatives had been with Air Canada since 1989 and therefore had a very complete history of the corporation. She was asked if back then Air Canada had in any way, shape or form expressed any reservations that the linguistic obligations of serving the Canadian travelling public in both English and French would apply to it at the moment it became a privatized corporation. She clearly responded that was not the case.

At the time of privatization it was quite clear that Air Canada would continue to have the responsibility of offering service in both English and French to the Canadian travelling public and travellers coming to Canada from abroad. Air Canada accepted that because it goes willy-nilly with a corporation that would carry the name Air Canada.

My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord presented this motion which was supported by all parties. I would hope that all parties would support the adoption of this report, because it is important that Parliament send a clear signal of its will to see the government introduce legislation. It is also important to send a clear signal to Air Canada that we are serious about its obligations that flow from as far back as 1988, the time of privatization, and before.

I would like to quickly address another subject. The Commissioner of Official Languages promised to help the committee improve the bill if necessary. I also asked the minister responsible if he could argue in favour of sending it to committee before second reading. This would give the committee some latitude and capacity for action that it would not otherwise have.

The Commissioner of Official Languages and the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, when he appeared before the committee, recognized that overall, the committee works very well and is responsible. I therefore urge the government to seriously think about sending us this bill before second reading, so that we may examine it critically and constructively.

[Official Languages, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, he and I have obviously not read the same report.

How can the government justify official language minority community organizations sometimes having to use their own credit cards, that is, cards belonging to the organization's leaders, to ensure their survival because of unacceptable delays in funding payments?

How can the minister justify such laissez-faire?