Transportation Modernization Bill

Honourable colleagues, it is my turn to comment on the message we received from the other place regarding Bill C-49. First of all, I would like to recognize the government’s efforts to improve Bill C-49 by accepting some of the amendments proposed by the upper chamber. However, as Senator Gagné so rightly pointed out in her recent speech, and I quote:

[The government] rejected every amendment that had anything to do with protecting the constitutional rights of minorities and more vulnerable segments of the population.

That is why, although I am sensitive to the issues facing farmers and the urgency of their situation, and I applaud and support the amendments proposed by some of our colleagues in that regard, including the amendment proposed by Senator Griffin —

It is to extend long-haul interswitching to Maritime provinces.

— I would argue that we must not necessarily scrutinize or minimize the aspects of the bill that are equally legitimate, such as guaranteeing access to bilingual services for passengers on flights within Canada, advocating for the privacy rights of train conductors, and maintaining the independence of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

I proposed an amendment in committee calling on the Canadian Transportation Agency to enact regulations, in consultation with the minister, requiring that air carriers provide services in both official languages. This amendment was a unique opportunity for the minister to move forward with one of the recommendations in the Emerson report and to take concrete action to ensure safety and advance the language rights of all Canadians travelling within Canada.

You’ll understand, honourable senators, why I was shocked and disappointed that the minister said once again in the other place that this amendment fell under the Official Languages Act and not his department.

Yet, we have proven time and again the reasons as to why the Official Languages Act cannot be applied in the regulatory framework for the provision of services, in both official languages, in a federally regulated industry sector, which includes airports, aerodromes and airline companies.

Moreover, the Senate legislative counsel and law clerk’s office confirmed that provisions dealing with linguistic obligations do not have to necessarily emanate from the Official Languages Act.

Indeed, there are multiple examples of legislative obligations and regulatory frameworks that fall under Transport Canada’s purview that establish linguistic obligations without any link to the Official Languages Act. Here are a few: section 304 of the Small Vessels Regulation; article 39 of the Railway Safety Act; and section 8, article 602, of the Canadian Aviation Regulations.

Honourable senators, that’s why our amendment was proposed as part of the review of the Transportation Modernization Act. That amendment makes it clear that it is up to the Canadian Transportation Agency to decide how strict carriers’ obligations should be.

In that context, we completely understand that the implementation of this amendment needs to take into account the reality of small airlines that have fewer resources or that serve very isolated areas. That’s why the proposed amendment gives the government as much flexibility as possible in this regard. In light of this information, honourable colleagues, why does the minister keep insisting that this amendment is out of order, and how should we interpret his position? Does it reveal a lack of commitment to protecting Canadians’ language rights? Or should we interpret it as a general lack of understanding of the actual content and scope of the Official Languages Act?

If that is the case, honourable senators, it’s high time that all the government ministers realized that they themselves have the power to promote respect for both official languages and don’t have to constantly offload their language responsibilities onto their colleague at Canadian Heritage.

I would therefore remind Minister Garneau and all his colleagues that language rights are not just the responsibility of the Department of Canadian Heritage and they do not just matter to our official language minority communities.

In Canada, official languages matter to all Canadians, since they are an inalienable part of the social contract that unifies our Canadian Confederation. One’s right to be served in the official language of his or her choosing aboard a domestic flight, by an airline company operating in a federally regulated industry, should be equally normal to one’s right to carry safely his or her musical instrument aboard an aircraft; and to one’s right to not indefinitely wait aboard an aircraft stuck on an airport runway.

Out of solidarity with our colleagues from western Canada, I do not plan to oppose the passage of this bill, but for these reasons, I urge the minister to show leadership once this bill receives royal assent and to undertake, as the message we received from the other place says, and I quote :

 . . . further study and consultation with concerned parties, including the federal agencies responsible for official languages, the Official Languages Commissioner and the industry stakeholders . . . to better understand the economic implications and competitiveness on the Canadian air sector;

This would ensure that we deal with the issue of language rights as quickly as possible.

Honourable colleagues, Canadians’ fundamental language rights are at stake and it is high time that all members of this government took action on this.

Thank you.