Evidence of meeting #136 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was whether.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Well put.
Just so people know, if this is turned down, it doesn't totally mean the House wouldn't see it. It means they wouldn't vote on it. The member has a couple of options. One is to appeal to the House, and the second is to replace it with another item, or to waive that, and then it can go to the House for debate, but it wouldn't be voted on.
The next person is Mr. Graham.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I appreciate your comments, both Mr. Reid and Mr. Christopherson, very much. I resent the comments that it's because it's going to cause a division in the caucus.
I'm an English MP for a riding that's 94% French, and I'm the one here on the record saying that this is unconstitutional. If it's going to be awkward for anybody, it's going to be awkward for me. I'm the one who is taking this quite as far as I can because I think it is fundamentally on its face unconstitutional, and that is a standard we as a committee have adopted.
If we don't agree with that standard, then it's up to us in the committee, and we have the power, to change that standard. But when I look at this law, cut and dried, it attacks minority language rights in all of Canada on its face, and that is against the purpose and the intent of the Constitution, and the Constitution itself.
That's the only reason I'm voting against it being votable. It's not to go after his rights. He has the right, as was just outlined, to replace it with another bill that is not unconstitutional. He has that right. We're not taking away his right to present a bill. We're taking away his right to violate the Constitution out of the gate.
People vote where they may, and if one person on this side changes their mind, then I'll lose my argument too, and that's fine. That's the way this place works. This is private members' business. It's up to us as individuals to make our decisions.
I was at the private members' meeting. I looked at the bill. I had this debate all the way through it. My assessment of it is that it is 100% unconstitutional. I see a credible founding, but I do not see a credible argument to how this could be constitutional. You are communicating with the government and you are being forced to pick a language in one province alone that goes against several aspects of the Charter of Rights. That is the only reason that I am opposing this. In English, as a minority anglophone in a French riding in Quebec, I am saying this is wrong. On the rules that we have adopted as a committee, we cannot vote for it.
That is my take. I'll leave it there. It is my personal decision. I came to this myself, and this is where I land.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much.
I guess I'll speak to a couple of points first about my academic dishonesty. Again, this isn't a government-led subcommittee, where the government's trying to kill this and I'm looking for any excuse to do this. This is about backing up colleagues. I guess speaking to Mr. Reid's point about deference and that courts don't deal with deference, courts deal with deference all the time. It's one of the—
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
No. One of the issues of judicial review is the level of deference that you grant to a lower court or tribunal.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Reid, I have the floor. I don't interrupt you when you have the floor, and this is now the second time today.
The issue at the end of the day.... Maybe we're speaking to it from a different standpoint. I'm coming at it from the legal side of things in terms of how a court would view deference, which is polite respect of a lower court, or in this case the subcommittee that had the chance to hear it, debate it and deal with it. It was not just the members from this side. It required a vote from the opposition to engage this process, and that's the reason we're here.
Again, at the end of the day—and back to Mr. Christopherson's point—I don't think it's the members' responsibility to bring us a legal case, but it's their duty to bring forward their best case and their best foot forward. The fact that we have Mr. Dufresne here....
That's part of that case and I respect that, and different members can think differently about that, but what I'm hearing is that it could go either way. In my mind, if the subcommittee heard...and in their view it went one particular way, I haven't been blown away by evidence to overturn that subcommittee's decision. That's where I'm coming from.
I didn't want it to come across as academically dishonest and I don't want to discount Mr. Dufresne and his expertise, but that's where I'm coming from at the end of the day.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I might also point out that this bill has now had more debate at this committee than it would otherwise have had.
12:20 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I would just like to make one clarification.
Ms. Lapointe, in our discussion, we talked about doing the citizenship test on the knowledge of Canada in French. We had a discussion about whether or not this would be required.
If paragraphs 1(1)(d) and 1(1)(e) of the bill are considered together to be joint requirements, the argument could be the second: knowledge of benefits and responsibilities should be demonstrated in French.
It is also important to ask whether this part is stricter than paragraph 1(1)(d), which simply requires an adequate knowledge of French
As for taking the citizenship test in French, would the court consider whether the interpretation of this part could be mitigated, because it would be considered excessive, while the first part would be justified?
That would also be part of the discussion.
On the issue of appeals, the only thing I would add is that, in some cases, courts will defer—that's quite right—and courts also, in other cases, will ask the questions: Who is best placed to make the determination? Is the administrative tribunal a better place or has it better expertise than the reviewing court? If no, then sometimes the reviewer court may call for less deference.
However, that's a part of administrative law in terms of asking those questions: How much deference, if any, is owed to the initial decision-maker?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Are there any more questions for the witness, or any more views that members want to express?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I was persuaded by Mr. Christopherson's arguments.
12:20 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
Why wouldn't we? I'd like a recorded one at that.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Chair, there is a reason why we don't have a vote just at this moment.