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

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Well, we can ask the committee if they want to go.... If there's a motion to move in camera, I'm willing to entertain any motions.

Is that a formal motion? No. Okay.

Besides, I'm sorry, Monsieur Proulx did not have the floor, so I shouldn't be listening with both ears.

Madame Robillard, you still have time for your questions.

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

Does this mean that nobody can answer my question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm not sure what the specifics of the questions would be, but I would caution members that the meeting was in camera. I'm going to allow Madame Picard—

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

Mr. Chairman, I am asking whether the subcommittee was advised by a lawyer regarding the constitutionality of this bill.

As it stands, I do not know how I will make my decision today. We have heard some very good legal arguments. I have excluded and rejected the political arguments. I do not know who will clarify the legal arguments for my so that I can make a decision.

Could we get an opinion from an expert on the Canadian Constitution?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I think that's allowable.

I see Mr. Paquette is wanting to answer the question, Madame Picard.

I was obviously not in the meeting, so I can't answer the question for you, Madame Robillard. But I'll allow the members, with the caution that the meeting was in camera.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Yes, all right. I want to inform all the committee members and Ms. Robillard of the arguments contain in the letter tabled by Ms. Picard.

We found several provisions in federal legislation that deal with language. For instance, the 1867 Constitutional Act deals with it under section 133, but that deals with the Parliament of Canada, the chambers of the Quebec legislature and the drafting of courts documents. It says nothing at all about private business, or about federal jurisdiction over private business.

Therefore, this cannot apply to Bill C-482.

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

I am sorry, I read the entire letter tabled by Ms. Picard.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Very well, all right.

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

I am reading the arguments.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

We did not find anything.

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

To enable me to judge whether your legal arguments are well founded...

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

A kind of counter...

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

I think that , as a member of Parliament, if I had sat on the subcommittee which had to decide whether or not the bill was votable, and if I were not a constitutional expert, I would have needed some clarification...

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

That is natural.

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

—to tell me that it was not constitutional.

Did the subcommittee have advice from a constitutional expert in deciding that the bill should be non-votable? That is my question.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Perhaps the committee chair can help us with this?

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

I do not want to know the opinion of the members; I simply want to know if someone, an expert, examined the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lemieux or Mr. Preston, did you want to make a comment?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I'll do my best without trying to break the confidentiality of an in camera meeting. The researchers and clerks of the committee gave advice to the all-party panel of the subcommittee, and from that, one of the four reasons for non-votability was picked and a vote was taken, and that's where we end up here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Madame Picard, you do have more time. No? We'll have time for another round, I'm guessing.

Monsieur Guimond, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My colleague, Ms. Robillard, has asked a very relevant question.

If I remember correctly—it has been a few years now since I have been a member of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business—there are four criteria used to decide on “votability”. I do not know if that is the correct term.

However, there is a problem regarding constitutionality, isn't there, Ms. Picard?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

That's right.

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

Very well.

I have a question now for you, Mr. Paquette.

Ms. Robillard is quite correct. With all due respect for the members of the subcommittee, it seems to me that they acted arbitrarily and erred in their interpretation as to the bill's “votability”, by invoking various constitutional instruments, that is, the two charters, the 1867 and 1982 Constitution Act and the charter.

Obviously, given the arguments in Ms. Picard's letter—and I would like to hear what you have to say on that, Mr. Paquette, since you started to speak of it earlier—there is nothing in the two Constitution acts or the charter that prevents this bill from being votable.

Is that right?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Yes.

We examined the various pieces of legislation and the federal charters. We found nothing that made it possible to... Obviously, there is a political debate—that has to be acknowledged—about whether it is desirable to have businesses under federal jurisdiction made subject to the Charter of the French language in Quebec, in order to promote the common language of our nation. We did not find anything.

As I have already mentioned, the 1867 Constitution Act refers only to the Parliament of Canada, the Quebec legislature and the courts.

Subsection 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

16.(1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada.

It does not talk about businesses under federal jurisdiction and subject to the Canada Labour Code. As I mentioned, there are precedents already. For example, where the minimum wage is concerned, the Canada Labour Code applies the minimum wage legislation in each province and there is no uniform federal minimum wage.

I would like to call the attention of the members of the committee to clause 13 of Bill C-15, An Act respecting the exploitation of the Donkin coal block and employment in or in connection with the operation of a mine that is wholly or partly at the Donkin coal block, and to make a consequential amendment to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. The clause deals with regulatory powers, and subsection 13(3) states:

13.(3) The regulations referred to in subsections (1) and (2) may incorporate by reference in whole or in part any Act of the province or instruments made under such an Act, as amended from time to time, with any adaptation that the Governor in Council considers necessary.

This approach was used again recently. So nothing technically would prevent us from including provisions in the Official Languages Act and the Canada Labour Code to have the Charter of the French language, Bill 101, apply to businesses under federal jurisdiction in Quebec.

We are not talking about federal institutions. You know that the language of work in federal institutions is governed by the Public Service Staff Relation Act. That is a completely different matter. When we are talking about federal departments and agencies, it is a different matter.

In our opinion, there needs to be a political debate. That may be what side tracked some members of the committee. They came to hasty conclusions rather than dealing strictly with the form of the motion regarding the bill's “votability”. That debate should take place.

We will see how the debate goes. But it would be quite contradictory if the committee were to decide that Bill C-482 was not votable for reasons that do not hold water.

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

Especially since I know, Mr. Paquette, that you do not have legal training in interpreting legislation...