Evidence of meeting #95 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 senate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
The buses are a problem.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We'll do it when we come back then.
We'll suspend to vote, but then we'll come back right after the vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Good afternoon. Welcome back to the 95th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Because of our time constraints, we've brought in our other witnesses so they can listen until we get to them. We continue our study.
We're pleased to be joined by Floyd McCormick, Clerk of the Yukon Legislative Assembly; and Danielle Mager, Manager, Public Affairs and Communications of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories.
Thank you both for making yourselves available today. We got delayed a bit, so we're finishing off our previous witnesses. You're welcome to listen.
We're not going to spend too much time, senators, but we'll have Mr. Patterson's statement for however long he wants and then maybe have one question from each party, and then we'll go on to our other witnesses.
Mr. Patterson is a great chair of the Arctic committee of the Senate, which is a new committee that has just started. I really appreciate going to those meetings. You do a great job chairing.
You're on.
Senator, Nunavut, C
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased and honoured to appear today to discuss the issue of rights and rules respecting indigenous languages in the House of Commons.
Just as a bit of background, I am a former MLA, a cabinet minister, and I was a premier in the government of the NWT between 1979 and 1995, so I've had some experience with questions of indigenous languages in the context of Parliament.
In the eighties, there was a push from the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau to make the NWT officially bilingual. New Brunswick had just become officially bilingual, and the government of the day was urging other provinces and territories to follow suit. There was a lot of pressure on us in the NWT to become officially bilingual.
At the same time, we had a number of MLAs whom we described as unilingual. They spoke only aboriginal languages, or if they could speak English or French, they were clearly handicapped. At the time, as my colleague said, there were also nine aboriginal languages spoken in the NWT that we were very concerned about supporting and enhancing. The prospect of becoming officially bilingual in English and French without also recognizing and supporting the aboriginal first languages of the majority of our population was unacceptable.
What did we do? We engaged with the Secretary of State at the time, the equivalent of which is now the Minister of Heritage, who was the Honourable Serge Joyal. We secured substantial support for the recognition and enhancement of aboriginal languages alongside becoming officially bilingual.
In 1984 the GNWT passed the Official Languages Ordinance. It recognized English and French as official languages but also recognized the status of aboriginal languages. In our first ordinance, we called them official aboriginal languages.
I mention that because the end result was that aboriginal languages, with subsequent amendments in the NWT and Nunavut, came to have equal status alongside English and French as official languages in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Members of both of those assemblies could then—and can now—fully participate in their first languages in a fulsome debate on the complex issues that mattered most to them and their constituents. There is, at significant cost I will say, simultaneous interpretation available in both of those assemblies in the official aboriginal languages of the NWT and Nunavut. We were able to debate complex land claims and political development of the NWT, including a major proposal to divide the NWT and create the new territory of Nunavut, with the full participation of unilingual MLAs who were also respected elders. I think this background may be helpful to you in your discussion of this issue as it pertains to the House of Commons.
I want to say that language should not serve as a disincentive for full participation in our democracy on the part of aboriginal people. We have to respect section 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution Act, as Senator Joyal has outlined, and understand that aboriginal languages are a fundamental expression of aboriginal rights.
In my opinion, if the primary language of a parliamentarian is an indigenous language, we must make every effort to ensure that the relevant accommodations are made to facilitate their ability to participate in meaningful and robust debate on the issues of the day. My respectful advice to your committee would be that, when there are members of Parliament who need to communicate in an aboriginal language other than English or French, in order to fully participate and exercise their rights and privileges as MLAs, as MPs, then full simultaneous translation services should be provided, including translation of documents. That's what is being done in the legislatures of the NWT and Nunavut.
Otherwise, any member who wishes to speak in an aboriginal language in Parliament should be allowed to speak with simultaneous translation available upon reasonable notice as is done in the Senate. So just to make it clear, if a member's privilege to debate and communicate is impeded by his inability to participate in English or French and that member is an aboriginal member, then full translation privileges should be extended. I'm not sure if that is the case today in the House of Commons, and it would be up to your committee, of course, to determine that. But otherwise—and I think this is really the question that's before you now—a member who wishes to speak in an aboriginal language in Parliament should be allowed to speak with simultaneous translation available but upon reasonable notice. This is what we've done in the Senate, and I think it's working well, and I think it may be a very useful precedent for your committee to consider.
That's my advice. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you very much, Senator Patterson.
Senator Joyal, we can have personal opinions, but you've certainly set the legal boundaries framework we're working in. That was great.
We'll go around with one questioner from each party.
Liberal
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
We're talking about notice. What is a reasonable notice period and does it vary for different languages?
Senator, Kennebec, Lib.
Forty-eight hours is normally the period. It has proven, so far as Inuktitut is concerned, to be a reasonable deadline for a senator to inform the clerk that he or she would want to address the Senate or the committee in that language. We think that 48 hours is a reasonable period of time in which to make it available especially—and it's always the same—to make sure that the interpreters are available. As I say, I think that the House of Commons—and I say that with the greatest respect for the House—and we in Canada are in the process of evolution. We're trying to reinstate a situation that has been lost and erased and deleted from history. So you can't do that.... My first boss on the Hill was former and late Minister Jean Marchand, who Mr. Bagnell might have known.
You are almost old enough to be a senator, Mr. Bagnell.
He always said that you can't have a transatlantic ship turn on a dime; you have to take a direction. The important thing is to have a direction and to do it in a practical way, not to try to change your rules immediately. I don't think it's what I would advise you to do. That's not the way we did it in the Senate, and it has proved to be successful. It's how you do it practically.
After a while, as I say, it's part of a general effort of the overall system in Canada to reinstate aboriginal peoples' full participation in mainstream Canada. So I think that what you could do certainly is to follow suit, the way the Senate has done it, and I think you are going to help the Senate to continue to improve our approach to it. And we could share the capacity of the interpreter. There won't be one interpreter available for the chamber and one available for the Senate. We could pool those resources and share them so that we have a reasonable approach as we do with safety on the Hill, because we are in the process of adapting to a new situation. The government has stated that they fully endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. You as a member of Parliament may remember that article 13 of the United Nations declaration reads “Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions.” It is within that trend that we put our efforts.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
So the answer is 48 hours.
Have any languages besides Inuktitut been tried in the Senate?
Senator, Kennebec, Lib.
No, not at this stage. However, what we do and what I suggest you do is that when there is a new senator appointed, the clerk can ask the new senator if they would consider using the aboriginal language and explain the process to them. For instance, after a general election, when you have a new House of Commons, the clerk could, of course, ask aboriginal MPs if it is their wish and so forth, so there is a way to plan ahead of time, rather than one day having somebody stand up and say, “I want to speak in an aboriginal language.” I think there is a way to plan all this in a rational way that could be helpful, as I say, for the whole system to adapt to this situation.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I have one final question before I turn it over.
In the Senate, do you use the Inuktitut in Hansard? Is it translated, and how long does that take?
Senator, Kennebec, Lib.
As I say, in the beginning, we considered asking the senators to have their text already translated, so that it could be printed in Hansard. That's a way to start. As I say, we all learn from the experience. To have it printed the next day, within the same time limit, could be a way to start. Otherwise, there might be a time lag of two days before it is reprinted, but it is always better to have it at the same time.
Liberal
Senator, Nunavut, C
Mr. Chair, maybe I could just quickly add that in the Senate, in the aboriginal peoples committee, we have offered translation for Cree and North Slavey speakers.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I realize that we don't have a lot of time, so I'm just going to throw a couple of questions out.
Either of you can feel free to answer, as you see appropriate. The first question is on the reasonableness of the time frame.
Senator Patterson, during your time in Northwest Territories politics, I'm curious as to whether there was any notice period or whether there it was simultaneous, as a member spoke.
Second—more generally and more to Senator Patterson, I would suspect—are you provided currently with any additional resources, through the Senate budget, for your own communications with your constituents in Inuktitut or in other indigenous languages, in terms of emails or newsletters—we have householders on the House side—and do you have resources such as that for translation?
Finally, regarding the cost factor, are you aware of the cost of the current pilot project in the Senate?
Those are my three questions. I'll throw it open for you to reply as you see fit.
Senator, Nunavut, C
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, there is no notice provision required because with unilingual members, there is full simultaneous interpretation available in all official languages of the territories, which include the aboriginal languages. As I mentioned, it's actually quite an expensive undertaking to have full-time interpreters. In fact, the Hansard in Nunavut is also translated into Inuktitut. Providing notice has never been an issue in those assemblies.
In the Senate, we have had occasions in committees where witnesses have provided information in Inuktitut in written form that has been translated, but there is no budget for senators or in the Senate for translation of aboriginal languages. It's just absorbed within the overall administrative costs of the Senate. For each senator who wishes to provide translation services, as I do, it's absorbed within the member's budget. Thank you.
Senator, Kennebec, Lib.
I just want to confirm what Senator Patterson has mentioned. It is within the overall envelope of services to senators that the funds are made available. We're not talking a big amount of money because it's not on a daily basis. It's not as if we would have to earmark one position for a permanent translator. So far, we've been able to operate within the present budget envelope. It's the same with committees. A committee can always go back to the internal economy committee, which is the same board that you have, and request it. If the fisheries committee, for instance, is travelling in the north and will need a translator, it could apply to the internal economy committee for a specific budget for that kind of trip. We've never really had any problem, in terms of having the resources needed to hire the translator or to do the interpretation when a committee travelled, for either the aboriginal affairs committee or the fisheries and oceans committee.
NDP
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby South, BC
Senators, thank you very much for your testimony and good insights.
My question is for you, Senator Joyal. You've cited the Constitution in various court cases. I'm just wondering if you consider indigenous languages to have the same status, constitutional or otherwise, as French and English.
Senator, Kennebec, Lib.
They don't have the same status as English or French, which is provided very clearly in the Constitution in sections 16 to 20 of the charter and in section 23, of course, for the teaching of official languages to minorities in various provinces, but they have a status. It's not a totally comparable status, but there's no doubt that they have a status, and I think it's fair with regard to what I call the evolution capacity of the Constitution.
Through the years, as I quoted in some decisions, the courts have been able to read into the Constitution the overall architecture of the Constitution. As one of those fundamental principles that stems from the secession reference of 1998—you may be familiar with the case—the court has identified what they call the underlying principles of the Canadian architecture of the Constitution. One of those is the protection of minority rights. Those are the elements that infuse the system.
As I say, the bill of rights is recognized in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 by the new sovereign of the land, and that royal proclamation is part of the Constitution. It's in the annex. In fact, it's the first document of the annex of the Constitution. I think that it was done, really, with the clear perception that in fact the rights of the aboriginal peoples were there at the beginning. They have been lost, but they were there, so they have a different status than English and French do.
French rights were reinstated by the Quebec Act and of course by the Constitution of 1867 and then the charter, but the aboriginal rights have never been erased per se. They are inherent. They have a different constitutional status, but they are there.
NDP
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby South, BC
We had the historic Tsilhqot'in apology yesterday, which I'm grateful to the Prime Minister for doing. I think it was a very important thing to do, especially since I'm a representative from British Columbia.
In a speech later in the Senate foyer, the regional chief said that Canada was initially envisioned as perhaps one nation, which didn't work, an English-speaking nation. Of course, we had a two-nation concept of French and English, but he reinforced this emerging idea of a three-nation Canada, so that we all think of ourselves in a state that has three nations, with the third nation having multiple nations within it.
I think what this is moving toward, with translation in the House, is reinforcing that idea of a three-nation concept of Canada, but I'm wondering if the third nation isn't quite as equal. I wonder where we're heading and how far we can or should go with this.
Senator, Kennebec, Lib.
I thank you for the question. You would need to ask me to come back to elaborate on this because—