7 up in Quebecois is 7 UP + $12,000

[August1991]

Air Canada should NOT be required to provide any service not required by competitors. It is a PRIVATE Co., has been for years.

It's a little more complicated. Air Canada has certain privileges and in return, it must follow the federal Official Languages Act.

Air Canada has forcefully pushed the federal government not to grant additional landing spots to Qatar and rival carriers Etihad Airways and Emirates.

"The current bilateral arrangements allow for more than adequate capacity to carry all point-to-point traffic between our two countries," Air Canada spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said in an email.

The airline has complained that the partially state-owned Middle Eastern carriers benefit from an unfair advantage. It has also suggested that the airlines are merely transporting passengers through their hubs Dubai and Abu Dhabi, which would eventually compromise direct Canadian service to its international network.

But Al Baker said Air Canada received government support for years before its privatization and indirect support since then in the form of pension funding relief and creditor protection.

"So when you are in a glass house you should not be throwing stones."

Canadian Business

[bloodyminded]

Quebec's laws (language),deprive all but French of equal service and it's well past time to change the laws in the rest of our country.

But that's conflating the Province of Quebec with French people generally.

That Quebec has, in the opinion of many poeple (including myself) acted intransigently and arrogantly doesn't mean we should be saying, petulantly, "Screw the French!"...which is what you're advocating.

I live in a province where the French can quite reasonably point to incidents of being screwed over by the English--the older ones, in their own lifetimes--and yet they have little use for Quebec, and are federalists to a person.

"French" is not synonymous with "Quebec."

[Sandy MacNab]

I'm going to see that my employees can say "Go f*** yourself" in French.

[WWWTT]

I'm going to see that my employees can say "Go f*** yourself" in French.

Oh thats easy,just walk into the room when they are not expecting you.

WWWTT

[Smallc]

It's a little more complicated. Air Canada has certain privileges and in return, it must follow the federal Official Languages Act.

The things you're talking about aren't privileges.

[cybercoma]

Here is the actual court decision, rather than the pre-chewed news reports:

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/T-451-10%2013-07-2011%20Decision%20ENG.pdf

[cybercoma]

Here's what the document says about Air Canada's obligations under the OLA:

Air Canada was initially created as a Crown corporation and, as such, was subject to the Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. O-2 and, then, to the OLA, which replaced it. In 1988, Air Canada was privatized, and the Air Canada Public Participation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 35 (4th Supp.) (ACPPA) provided for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act. Otherwise, under section 10 of the ACPPA, Air Canada is still subject to the OLA.

Section 10 of the ACPPA:

the Corporation has the duty to ensure that any of the subsidiary’s customers can communicate with the subsidiary in respect of those services, and obtain those services from the subsidiary, in either official language in any case where those services, if provided by the Corporation, would be required under Part IV of the Official Languages Act to be provided in either official language

According to this, Air Canada, since it began as a Crown Corporation is still required to follow the OLA. The court's decision in my last post goes on to explain how Air Canada breached sections 21, 22, 23 and 25 of the OLA.

I don't like the idea of someone tying up the courts with opportunistic bullshit, but given the amount of traffic that goes through the airports in Ottawa and Toronto, the court believed there is a significant demand for bilingual services in those places. No one complaining thus far does not abrogate AC of their responsibilities under the OLA. Like I said in a previous post, it's possible that some francophones just didn't want the headache of appearing to be Quebec nationalists. It's also unfair to them that they would have to use their second language, if they do understand English, when their language is recognized as having equal footing according to the OLA. So, I don't think this was opportunism. I think it's an anglophone that happens to be bilingual that didn't have to worry about that stigma standing up for the rights of francophones all over this country.

[cybercoma]

If Federal institutions are supposed to provide services in both Languages, then I could have sued for thousands when I first moved to Quebec City. It was extremely hard to find Federal employees in this city, who spoke English. Both at Revenue Canada, as well as Human Resources Canada. And I'm not talking being fluent. I'm talking about having even the slightest working knowledge of English. Some didn't even understand even basic English words. At Human Resources Canada, I was told I had to go to St. Foy for service in English. Thank goodness I speak French as well. But at the time, I was just learning French, and I found it easier to get my message across in English. At Revenue Canada, they had no one available to speak English at the time I went. I feel sorry for someone who has to deal with them and speaks no French at all.

File a complaint with the Commissioner that oversees the OLA.

[cybercoma]

that requirement [bilingual service] should have been dropped in the interest of fair competition.

Air Canada should NOT be required to provide any service not required by competitors.

The court case has nothing to do with what Air Canada should or shouldn't have to do. Courts do one simple thing, decide whether a law has been broken. In this case, it's obvious that Air Canada was required to follow the OLA and contravened many sections in Part IV of the Act. Whether they should or shouldn't be bound by the act is completely irrelevant to the court case. Moreover, they are not necessarily required to provide services in both language everywhere and at all times, but the court did find that major airports that have millions of visitors a year constitute a particular instance where it would be likely that francophone passengers would require French-language services on a regular basis.

[Bob]

It's really sad when the government forces business to adhere to what should be a governmental-only policy. It is unfair to force a company like Air Canada to be bilingual through-and-through. It should only be as bilingual as it chooses to be. The government can set such a standard for itself, but it shouldn't be permitted to force private businesses to do so.

And as we can see, this bilingual regulation unjustly imposed on Air Canada is easy to exploit, as the story from the OP demonstrates.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

The court case has nothing to do with what Air Canada should or shouldn't have to do. Courts do one simple thing, decide whether a law has been broken. In this case, it's obvious that Air Canada was required to follow the OLA and contravened many sections in Part IV of the Act. Whether they should or shouldn't be bound by the act is completely irrelevant to the court case. Moreover, they are not necessarily required to provide services in both language everywhere and at all times, but the court did find that major airports that have millions of visitors a year constitute a particular instance where it would be likely that francophone passengers would require French-language services on a regular basis.

That's fine, but this story touches on broader issues. So in this thread we will discuss those broader issues. I know I am not alone when I say that it is unfortunate that our CCRF doesn't provide greater protections for personal freedoms. This inevitably leads to silly stories like this one, where a private business is coerced by the government with respect to how to conduct its operations - forcing Air Canada to adhere to governmentally-imposed bilingual service standards. Either way you slice it, this is an infringement of freedom. Of course supporters of such regulations will argue that this infringement on freedom is for some greater good, or, at the very least, to benefit an entitled minority known as Francophones.

My perspective is that people (and businesses) should be free to choose how they wish to interact with one another. Government intervention in this case is an example of dictating the terms through which people (and businesses) can deal with one another, and in this case, it is taxing the business in order to 'benefit' a minority.

Consider that such regulations didn't exist. What would be the problem? This man would've gotten where he was going. Non-English speakers fly on English-only airlines every days. Moreover, imagine how many times per day people fly who don't speak the language(s) of the plane staff or indeed even the airport. They manage, either way. We certainly shouldn't have government forcing businesses to adhere to such expectations. If we really believe that this is a worthwhile social endeavour, then the taxpayer should pay for all the expenses incurred by the regulated businesses in their efforts to comply with this nonsensical imposition of bilingualism.

[cybercoma]

Yeah. Damn the government for forcing Air Canada to follow the OLA, when the entire business was built on the backs of French and English speaking taxpayers.

[Bob]

Yeah. Damn the government for forcing Air Canada to follow the OLA, when the entire business was built on the backs of French and English speaking taxpayers.

What's your point, exactly?

[cybercoma]

What's your point, exactly?

My point is that they were built by the government with taxpayers money and were required to follow the OLA because they were a government institution. If they wanted to become private and keep their profits to themselves, then part of the agreement was that they had to continue following the OLA. I think that's a reasonable stipulation given that they were always bound by the act, they're required to provide service to both anglophones and francophones, and they're not the only business bound by language laws, but most importantly because they were originally a Crown Corporation. Besides, they're not the only ones required to provide instructions in French. Manufacturers have to label their products or provide printed instructions in both official languages as well. I don't see why Air Canada providing instructions to its passengers doesn't have to follow the same rules just because they're verbal instructions.

What you think should or shouldn't be the case is really beside the point here though. The ACPPA states explicitly that Air Canada must follow the OLA because it was borne of a Crown Corporation. We could argue in circles all day about what we believe should and shouldn't happen. You could make an argument that no business should provide any accomodations that they feel they don't want to. I'll argue that businesses should make all reasonable accomodations to avoid discrimination against minorities and those that are lacking institutional power, such as accessibility for the disabled. Neither of us can be proven right or wrong because it's simply our opinions and we'll each have some that agree with both our positions.

[Bob]

My point is that they were built by the government with taxpayers money and were required to follow the OLA because they were a government institution. If they wanted to become private and keep their profits to themselves, then part of the agreement was that they had to continue following the OLA. I think that's a reasonable stipulation given that they were always bound by the act, they're required to provide service to both anglophones and francophones, and they're not the only business bound by language laws, but most importantly because they were originally a Crown Corporation. Besides, they're not the only ones required to provide instructions in French. Manufacturers have to label their products or provide printed instructions in both official languages as well. I don't see why Air Canada providing instructions to its passengers doesn't have to follow the same rules just because they're verbal instructions.

What you think should or shouldn't be the case is really beside the point here though. The ACPPA states explicitly that Air Canada must follow the OLA because it was borne of a Crown Corporation. We could argue in circles all day about what we believe should and shouldn't happen. You could make an argument that no business should provide any accomodations that they feel they don't want to. I'll argue that businesses should make all reasonable accomodations to avoid discrimination against minorities and those that are lacking institutional power, such as accessibility for the disabled. Neither of us can be proven right or wrong because it's simply our opinions and we'll each have some that agree with both our positions.

Well, Air Canada is now a private business, so why should it adhere to standards set by the government? Just because Air Canada was forced into agreeing to these terms doesn't make them right. Legalistic arguments mean nothing to me. Any absurd idea can be argued for as long as there is a law on the books supporting it.

I'm making a broader point here, that individuals and businesses should be allowed to interact with each other through voluntary associated, and should not be coerced by the government in order to appease political interests. You completely ignored my point that people fly every day in situations where they don't speak the language of service, yet they still get where they're going without governments forcing airlines and airports to service their minority interests. Moreover, what makes you think that without such silly regulation, that Air Canada wouldn't still make efforts to have reasonable access to French services given the signifant French market?

And you're going on again with your communist rhetoric about vulnerable minorities and "institutional power". Fro heaven's sake, we're talking about airline service here! Can't you give the communist rhetoric about minorities being trampled on by the evil corporations in the context of such a simple discussion? I really don't think a Francophone experiencing some communication difficulties on an airplane with the flight attendants factors into your narrative about abused minorities being held down by evil capitalists. It's just a possible inconvenience in this thing called life.

Although somewhat tangential, I don't think French/English labeling is too much of an intervention. It's quite simple and low cost for food manufacturers to do such a thing, and they would likely do something similar in the Canadian marketplace voluntarily even without government regulation. This is quite different than ensuring bilingual staff all over the place, though.

Lastly, in terms of practical effects of bilingual regulation of businesses, this unfairly benefits Francophones who seek these jobs in the sense that Francophones are much more likely than Anglophones to be bilingual. So what we end up seeing is high proportion of Francophones in bilingual jobs, which isn't a problem in and of itself, but the reasons for them being there are grounded in a sort of indirect discrimination against Anglophones.

[cybercoma]

Well, Air Canada is now a private business, so why should it adhere to standards set by the government?

Why should there be industrial safety regulations, employment standards acts, minimum wage or environmental regulations either? Because the benefits to society outweigh the limitations placed on the businesses.

I really don't think a Francophone experiencing some communication difficulties on an airplane with the flight attendants factors into your narrative about abused minorities being held down by evil capitalists. It's just a possible inconvenience in this thing called life.

Why should francophones be "inconvenienced" on a national airline they were a partner in founding and in the country they were also an equal partner in founding?

Although somewhat tangential, I don't think French/English labeling is too much of an intervention.

Isn't that the point of what I said though? We can sit here all day picking and choosing what is and isn't too much of an intervention. It all boils down to your opinion versus someone else's opinion.

Lastly, in terms of practical effects of bilingual regulation of businesses, this unfairly benefits Francophones who seek these jobs in the sense that Francophones are much more likely than Anglophones to be bilingual

Wow. That's really too bad that francophones are more likely to become bilingual than anglophones. It's not unfair because someone that speaks a single language, whether it be English or French, is at a disadvantage from someone that speaks two languages. So it should be. The bilingual person speaks an additional langauge. Francophones don't have any sort of inherent advantage. The fact is that anglophones just can't be bothered learning this country's other official language. It's that arrogance that limits their opportunities, but you blame it on some sort of unfair advantage for francophones.

[Guest Peeves]

That's fine, but this story touches on broader issues. So in this thread we will discuss those broader issues. I know I am not alone when I say that it is unfortunate that our CCRF doesn't provide greater protections for personal freedoms. This inevitably leads to silly stories like this one, where a private business is coerced by the government with respect to how to conduct its operations - forcing Air Canada to adhere to governmentally-imposed bilingual service standards. Either way you slice it, this is an infringement of freedom. Of course supporters of such regulations will argue that this infringement on freedom is for some greater good, or, at the very least, to benefit an entitled minority known as Francophones.

My perspective is that people (and businesses) should be free to choose how they wish to interact with one another. Government intervention in this case is an example of dictating the terms through which people (and businesses) can deal with one another, and in this case, it is taxing the business in order to 'benefit' a minority.

Consider that such regulations didn't exist. What would be the problem? This man would've gotten where he was going. Non-English speakers fly on English-only airlines every days. Moreover, imagine how many times per day people fly who don't speak the language(s) of the plane staff or indeed even the airport. They manage, either way. We certainly shouldn't have government forcing businesses to adhere to such expectations. If we really believe that this is a worthwhile social endeavour, then the taxpayer should pay for all the expenses incurred by the regulated businesses in their efforts to comply with this nonsensical imposition of bilingualism.

Well stated. Further, other Canadian based airlines are not required to comply with what I consider a draconian obligation, a carryover from when this was a Crown corp in the 80' I believe.

They must compete on an uneven playing field. This ruling serves a purpose, it points out the need to rectify some issues of language (one sided),in our country.

This Thibodough has sued 3 X now. One would think it is time he would be put on an Air Canada list n'est ce pas?

Michel Thibodeau and his partner Lynda sued Air Canada for half a million dollars in punitive damages for not complying with a Canadian law that requires the airline to provide services in both of Canada's official languages - French and English - on flights where routinely at least five percent of the passengers are Francophone.

[cybercoma]

How is it an even playing field when Air Canada was built by taxpayers money, while the other airlines were presumably built by the owners of those companies? Air Canada had an unfair advantage from the beginning. The very least they can do is agree to offer services in both official languages.

[Bob]

How is it an even playing field when Air Canada was built by taxpayers money, while the other airlines were presumably built by the owners of those companies? Air Canada had an unfair advantage from the beginning. The very least they can do is agree to offer services in both official languages.

It's no longer publicly owned, so why should it indefinitely be beholden to governmental imposition of bilingualism? I wonder, have you even made one comment in this entire thread expressing how absurd the story in the OP is? I cannot fathom how you support government regulation that leads to such exploitation from opportunistic thieves like this Thibodeau character. In your view, government regulation can do no wrong.

[bloodyminded]

Wow. That's really too bad that francophones are more likely to become bilingual than anglophones. It's not unfair because someone that speaks a single language, whether it be English or French, is at a disadvantage from someone that speaks two languages. So it should be. The bilingual person speaks an additional langauge. Francophones don't have any sort of inherent advantage. The fact is that anglophones just can't be bothered learning this country's other official language. It's that arrogance that limits their opportunities, but you blame it on some sort of unfair advantage for francophones.

Yeah, I noticed that too; it was as if we were discussing some innate genetic quality.

More Francophones are bilingual because they learned a second language. That's it, by definition.

I should think capitalists, free market advocates, et al would be reflexively supportive of a bias in favour of learned, patently useful and marketable skills.

I guess that flies out the window when Ol' Frenchie is the subject.

[Bob]

Why should there be industrial safety regulations, employment standards acts, minimum wage or environmental regulations either? Because the benefits to society outweigh the limitations placed on the businesses.

Except for environmental regulations, I oppose all of the social interventions you mentioned. They all do more harm than good. Being the good socialist that you are, however, you diligently subscribe to the "social benefits" of regulation like minimum wage.

Why should francophones be "inconvenienced" on a national airline they were a partner in founding and in the country they were also an equal partner in founding?

So Air Canada was built with only English and French taxpayer money? What about Canadians of other backgrounds? If we have this conversation in another fifty years, will you still be claiming that Air Canada must forever be beholden to bilingual governmental policy because of its origins as a public project?

Isn't that the point of what I said though? We can sit here all day picking and choosing what is and isn't too much of an intervention. It all boils down to your opinion versus someone else's opinion.

Facts, results, and laws of economics tend to lend more credence to certain "opinions". Either a policy works or it doesn't.

Wow. That's really too bad that francophones are more likely to become bilingual than anglophones. It's not unfair because someone that speaks a single language, whether it be English or French, is at a disadvantage from someone that speaks two languages. So it should be. The bilingual person speaks an additional langauge. Francophones don't have any sort of inherent advantage. The fact is that anglophones just can't be bothered learning this country's other official language. It's that arrogance that limits their opportunities, but you blame it on some sort of unfair advantage for francophones.

It's not arrogance, it's environmental/social pressures that increase the likelihood of Francophones learning English than vice versa. Francophones are certainly not more ambitious about learning English as a second language than Anglophones are to learn French as a second language. It's a product of environmental/social factors, and bilingual policies benefit Francophones.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

Yeah, I noticed that too; it was as if we were discussing some innate genetic quality.

More Francophones are bilingual because they learned a second language. That's it, by definition.

I should think capitalists, free market advocates, et al would be reflexively supportive of a bias in favour of learned, patently useful and marketable skills.

I guess that flies out the window when Ol' Frenchie is the subject.

I have no problem with that if the business independently decides that it was bilingual employees. it becomes discriminatory, however, when this policy if forced onto businesses, as in the case of Air Canada. Without exception, this inevitably leads to businesses compromising on certain assets (experience, skills, characteristics, etc) of employee candidates in order to satisfy governmental regulations. It's one thing for a business to do something voluntarily, it's something else entirely to be forced to comply with unjustifiable government coercion. Constitutional arguments could easily be made to support my position, even at the governmental level.

I also oppose this as a governmental policy in many respects. I can share many anecdotes about how government bureaucracies are acting resources on complying with official bilingual policy at the expense of more important issues - primarily efficiency.

[bloodyminded]

Except for environmental regulations, I oppose all of the social interventions you mentioned.

Including workplace safety regulations?

They all do more harm than good. Being the good socialist that you are, however, you diligently subscribe to the "social benefits" of regulation like minimum wage.

So the majority of Westerners, including Canadians and Americans, most of whom "diligently subscribe" to the notion of minimum wage, are "socialists"?

It's not arrogance, it's environmental/social pressures that increase the likelihood of Francophones learning English than vice versa. Francophones are certainly not more ambitious about learning English as a second language than Anglophones are to learn French as a second language. It's a product of environmental/social factors, and bilingual policies benefit Francophones.

But that's true of the vast majority of individual beneficial traits that help lead to financial success generally. A specific type of environment, networks of the "right" people happening to be part of one's environment/social circles, and other factors quite outside of the entrepreneurial myths to which some people genuflect.

[cybercoma]

Perhaps you folks should actually read the Air Canada Public Participation Act. When it became privatized the legislation created many different rules. Another one I'm sure you would all disagree with is that non-residents cannot own more than 25% of the corporation.

[cybercoma]

In Air Canada's own words:

As Canada’s principal air carrier, Air Canada is honoured to promote its country’s bilingualism and multiculturalism to the world. In North America, it is the only airline that can pride itself on offering service in English and French to such an extent, not only because it is the rule of the land and makes good commercial sense, but also out of respect for Canada’s official language communities.

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/language/documents/linguistic-action-plan.pdf

So Air Canada doesn't just follow the laws simply because they are written, but "out of respect for Canada's official language communities." Their words, not mine. When a francophone passenger cannot get service on the airline in one of the official languages of this country, Air Canada, by their own words, is showing disrespect to that community.

Edited July 20, 2011 by cybercoma