No, there is an article 16.1(1), which says the following:
The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities.
That's an important one, Mr. Chairman. Once again our Constitution, as enlightened as it is, reinforces that aspect. As I just touched on with the aboriginal communities--we're putting that into words, on paper, and into the record--we also, under article 16.1(1), super-emphasize that we really want to have not only equality of status and equal rights, but the right to distinct educational institutions and distinct cultural institutions, as necessary, for the preservation and promotion of these communities. I think that's an important one.
I think that goes to the heart of what Canadianism is. We want to preserve what we have--our cultural aspirations for the future, preservation of the past. I think article 16.1(1) emphasizes the importance of doing so. It emphasizes that this is a Canadian quality that we want. We want to keep the aspect of not just the linguistic duality, but we want to keep the cultural institutions and preserve the cultural aspects and educational institutions that we have.
Then it says, under article 16.1(2),
The role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick to preserve and promote the status, rights and privileges referred to in subsection (1) is affirmed.
That simply reinforces article 16.1. I think if we review particularly the Official Languages Act and how we treat and disseminate these issues and articles, it becomes very obvious that the intent s not simply to put down a line or two; it's also to keep reinforcing, to put more and more emphasis on the languages and our cultural institutions as a way of defining Canada.
We hear of the melting pot of other countries, whereas we want to define Canada's originality and roots. We are certainly defining it here in the linguistic duality aspect of it, not just in the language, but also in the cultural institutions that created this linguistic duality.
Article 17(1) says that everyone has the right “to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament”. That's one of the issues that the Canadian Parliament in particular has had for a long period of time. I'm wondering, in this electronic age that we have--and we certainly have translation in the Parliament of today--how far back have we had that? What did they do before the electronic age, before they could have translators and earphones? How did they do it at that time? That might have been problematic. But with the electronics of today.... I've been here for 12 years, and we've had what we see here in the back of the room, where our translators doing a great job for us.
That's one of the advantages of Canada. People around the world say, “How do you do everything with two languages and simultaneous translation?” It's actually a marvel to see. It's not just the translators who do this great job on a day-to-day basis here for us--greatly appreciated.
We also have it in the written form, too. We see it in reproductions. We see it in the reports. It is really a marvel when you think about it.
From time to time, our friends from the Bloc remind us that we do not have the translations of every discussion paper before the committee. I have to agree with that. If we can't have the translated material so that everybody can read it equally....
I can read French a little bit, but I am just not good enough at it to pick out all the particulars of it, the significance of it. I try. I do prefer to have it in English, and I am sure, in turn, our friends from the Bloc, and our friends who predominantly were brought through life in the French language, would prefer to have it in that language, too, so they have the proper significance of that.
It is not just our linguistic duality. It is the fact that we actually contribute and build and work together in two languages. We try our best not to leave each other out. Certainly here in Parliament we do a marvellous job of it, but we need to correct it every once in a while. I absolutely agree with any suggestion that we can always do better and that we should be doing our best to have it in both official languages. That's only right. That's how our Parliament of Canada has been operating.
When we go back in history—I've never asked this question—was it so before we had our electronics? Did they have translations at that time? I'm not sure; I'm not sure. With the advent of the electronic age, and with microphones and translations and provisos like that, certainly it has increased the quality of our debates and it has increased the quality of our being able to represent this country as a whole by being able to have these translation services in oral and written form for our country. It is very much appreciated.
Article 17(2) says that “Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of the legislature of New Brunswick.” That is kind of interesting, because it is defined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We actually are sure to include that in a provincial legislature that really wants to have those provisos on a provincial basis. I think, once again, it shows that Canadians all across this country have consideration for provinces that wish to have those provisos as well. I am not sure that other provinces have really entertained the thought of having duality of translation and services in their legislatures. As I touched on before, I believe that Nunavut has some translation in other languages. I'm sure provinces wish or would like to be included in that statement, along with New Brunswick. They would probably put forward their initiative if they wished to do so.
As I said to Mr. Dewar, the Constitution is a living, breathing document here. It could be suitably amended at some time in the future if another province wished to entertain that aspect of it as well. Or, if Mr. Dewar wished to entertain a constitutional amendment, he certainly has the rights and privilege to put forward that as well.
Article 18--we're really burning through this today--states:
(1) The statutes, records and journals of Parliament shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative.
As I was saying, I was speaking a little bit ahead of myself on this, on the articles, but it certainly underscores and underlines the first article, where everybody has the right to use French and English, because it is important to have it in the printed word as well and have it published in that.
We've all taken advantage of having the published versions. We review them from time to time, and it's only appropriate that they be in both languages. There was a time when, at the end of a session, we would be issued a series of books containing all the bills and discussions in Parliament. I forget what it was called, but it was an eight-foot-long section of black-bound books.