Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Shall the bill carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Shall I report the bill to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We don't need to reprint the bill, since it wasn't amended.

Thank you, colleagues. We will take up reporting that to the House at our earliest convenience.

I must thank.... I'm sorry; go ahead, Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Can you indulge me just for a moment, Mr. Chair, to provide some clarity to the committee?

As I mentioned earlier, our intention today is to ask for unanimous consent in the House to report this bill back to the House as of today. That would allow debate on this bill to begin on Thursday, with any luck. If the debate collapses on this one Thursday, we can vote on this bill on Thursday and send it directly to the Senate.

If we do not receive unanimous consent to report this bill back to the House today, the consequence will be that this bill will not come into effect until, at the earliest, sometime next year--probably in February.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you. I have just been told by our clerks and analysts that we can be ready to report this bill to the House today.

Thank you for that, colleagues, and thank you very much for your consideration today.

We now have the opportunity to move to our final bit of business today.

Madame Picard and Mr. Paquette, please have a seat. We will move on to our business.

Thank you very much. Colleagues, our final business for this meeting is concerning the private members' business on Bill C-482. I will open the floor for comments.

I'm not sure if a decision has been made about who will speak first, but I'll open the floor.

Madame Picard, please make your opening statement to the committee.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have come here before you today to demonstrate that Bill C-482, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, of which I am the sponsor, does not in any way violate the Canadian Constitution and that it should therefore be deemed to be votable by this committee.

I provided a written argument to this effect this morning to the committee chair. However, before dealing with the constitutional issue, I would first like us briefly to review the provisions in this bill.

To begin with, it proposes four amendments to the Official Languages Act, aimed basically at specifying that French is the official language of Quebec and that the federal government must not obstruct the application of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec.

The bill amends the Canada Labour Code to make any federal work, undertaking or business carrying on activities in Quebec subject to the requirements of the Charter of the French Language.

Finally, it amends the Canada Business Corporations Act by requiring that the name of a corporation that carries on business in Quebec shall be in a form that meets the requirements of the Charter of the French Language.

I will now give the floor to my colleague, Pierre Paquette, the Bloc Québécois House Leader, who will speak to you about the constitutional issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

On a point of order, Mr. Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a procedural question. Since Ms. Picard is here before us this morning, I presume that her bill was refused by the subcommittee.

Would it not be usual practice for the committee to have the benefit of the subcommittee's report explaining to us, first, that Ms. Picard's bill had been rejected as being non-votable? Would we not normally expect to receive a report from the subcommittee explaining why the bill was deemed to be non-votable? In other words, I get the feeling that I am listening to Ms. Picard without knowing exactly why.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

The report was tabled by Mr. Preston at a previous meeting. The report is available to all members. We will get you a copy if you don't have it. My apologies.

I suppose some consideration has to be given to the fact that the committee met in camera, so some of those reasons might not be available to you.

Mr. Proulx, are you satisfied that we'll get you what we can get? That report was tabled, absolutely.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Absolutely.

I apologize if I was sleeping at the switch, but none of us Liberals received a copy of that report. We haven't seen that report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We'll make sure you get a copy of the report.

How about we read it into the record? Then I want to hear from Mr. Guimond.

[Michel Bédard, Committee Researcher]

While we are waiting for the copies of the report to be distributed, I will read it out loud to you.

The Subcommittee on Private Members' Affairs has the honour to present its FIRST REPORT Pursuant to Standing Order 92(1)(a), the Subcommittee has agreed that Bill C-482, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , should be designated as non-votable, on the basis that it contravenes the criterion that bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci.

I'm going to take a second here. I want to hear from Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Guimond, please.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I would also remind my colleague, Mr. Proulx, that our witnesses are appearing pursuant to Standing Order 92(2). The notice of meeting was explicit: the sponsor of the bill has the right to appear in order to appeal the decision.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I understand.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Very well. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I agree. Absolutely.

I think we're back on track here.

Mr. Paquette, please continue.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, colleagues.

As stated clearly in the letter provided by my colleague, Pauline Picard, who has appeared before the committee, Bill C-482 is in full compliance with the Canadian Constitution. Indeed, the Bloc Québécois took great pains to ensure that it did not violate the Constitution. That is why the bill's scope is limited. Pauline Picard mentioned that earlier.

The constitutional rules applying to linguistic matters are identical for private businesses under Quebec and federal jurisdiction. In Quebec, the Charter of the French Language applies to private businesses under Quebec's jurisdiction, and its provisions are fully in compliance with the Constitution.

All that our bill seeks to do is to incorporate, by reference—which is a common procedure—the provisions of the Charter of the French Language into federal legislation so that the provisions apply on Quebec territory. Legislation that is constitutional when it applies to Quebec does not become unconstitutional when it is incorporated into federal law. In fact, incorporation by reference is frequent in federal legislation.

For example, although the Supreme Court decided in 1966 that the Quebec Minimum Wage Act could not be applied to businesses under federal jurisdiction—like all provincial legislation, incidentally—the Canada Labour Code currently incorporates by reference the provisions of provincial legislation to set the minimum wage for employees under federal jurisdiction.

The pretext that has been used, in particular by the members of the Conservative Party of Canada, is completely specious. It is an unsubtle tactic to prevent the House from voting on a bill that some people in Canada might be uncomfortable with.

The fact is that in November 2006, a year ago, all parties in this House formally recognized the Quebec nation. Either that recognition was sincere and meaningful, or it was a pointless, empty gesture. If you acknowledge the existence of Quebec as a nation, you also recognize that for the French, the common public language is French and the language of work is French. In Quebec, everyone is in agreement on this: the National Assembly and all the parties, including the Liberal Party of Quebec and the Action démocratique du Québec.

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that Quebec was justified in adopting legislative measures to protect the French language. The Prime Minister, who is the leader of the Conservative Party, said the same thing in his speech last Friday in Rivière-du-Loup. I would invite all members, but particularly those from the Conservative Party, to listen carefully to what their leader, the Prime Minister, stated:

[My] Conservative government practises a federalism of openness that respects Quebec's historical, cultural and linguistic distinctiveness and gives it the flexibility and autonomy it needs to maintain its francophone identity [...]

The “flexibility and autonomy... [...] to maintain its francophone identity” is what the Conservative leader said and what our bill is about, quite simply.

Does the Prime Minister say things just to deceive Quebeckers, or is he sincere? Either the members of this committee have to walk the talk in keeping with their recognition of the Quebec nation and the Prime Minister's statements and therefore make C-482 a votable bill, or Bill C-482 will not be votable and Quebeckers will have to conclude that recognition of our nation by the NDP, the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada was just an empty gesture.

If the committee members do not allow a debate and vote on our Bill C-482, Quebeckers will see clearly that the behaviour of the Conservative Party of Canada toward Quebec can be summed up in a word: hypocrisy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci, Monsieur Paquette.

Colleagues, we should probably stick with our usual round of questioning, if we can do that, if that's acceptable for everybody.

We'll start with a seven-minute round then. Up first would be Madame Robillard and then Monsieur Guimond.

Madame Robillard.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, if I am not mistaken, the first report from our subcommittee which deals with private members' bills, rejects this bill because it violates the Constitution, as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am setting aside the political arguments from my colleague Mr. Paquette and I am listening to the legal arguments which were quoted both by Ms. Picard and by Mr. Paquette. I feel that we are engaging in a debate over legal interpretation. I am trying to follow this.

Can we find out, Mr. Chairman, whether a lawyer told the committee that this was contrary to the Constitution and to the Charter? Did the members get any advice? I do not think that I am violating the in camera conditions if I ask whether a lawyer gave an opinion on this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, Madame Robillard.

I think all members know the rules behind in camera meetings, and we just caution them. They can certainly talk about what they feel they can talk about. I'll be listening for some of that information and rule it out, but I think we can ask the questions, and members will be free to answer them as they feel.

I will remind members, though, that we are not in camera right now; we are in public.

Does that answer your question?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Should we be?