Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 27th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good morning. Welcome to meeting 95 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I want to deal with a couple of business matters quickly in case we have to go to a vote again. Due to a change in the membership of our committee, the first order of business is the election of the second vice-chair. Since they have to be from the NDP, and the NDP has only one member, I don't think it'll be a hard process. I'll turn it over to the clerk for the official process.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Andrew Lauzon]

Thank you.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice-chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition. I'm prepared to receive motions for the office of second vice-chair.

Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I move Mr. Stewart.

[The Clerk]

It has been moved by Mr. Graham that Mr. Stewart be elected as second vice-chair of the committee. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

I declare the motion carried. Mr. Kennedy Stewart is declared duly elected second vice-chair of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Congratulations.

If you would, please pass on our best wishes to Mr. Christopherson. He certainly made significant contributions to this committee. We're like a family, and he was part of our family.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

I'll do my best to fill his large shoes, and I will pass on your regards. Thank you very much for your support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

For the next item of business, we have distributed a budget for witnesses. I think the total is $28,000. There's a little room there in case we get more witnesses. Is everyone agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Carried.

Another quick piece of business is being handed around. As you know, Parliament is now trying to advertise a bit more about what committees are doing, through Twitter and the website. We have distributed what the wording would be. Does anyone have any comments on it? It seems to be pretty simple.

Okay. We could discuss it more later, but we have a bunch of witnesses lined up for this study, so unless people have other suggestions or we are interrupted by something, we'll continue to let the clerk try to arrange the witnesses the various parties have organized for the next few meetings.

Potentially the main estimates will be tabled after April 16. Because the Speaker and those people are hard to get, I'm suggesting that we tentatively set aside Thursday, April 26 for the main estimates with the Speaker and those witnesses we normally have for that. Okay.

Before that, we'll have witnesses the parties have suggested.

Claudine Santos, Senator Patterson's assistant, is joining us at the table.

Is there any other business? The Liaison committee wants to know all of our travel plans between July and December. Does the researcher have exotic places we can go yet?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

The Wellington Building.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll be travelling to the Wellington Building on occasion. We'll put in a “nil report” unless anyone provides anything else. We can always change it later.

We'll now continue our study of indigenous languages in the proceedings of the House of Commons. We are pleased to be joined by two senators, the Honourable Serge Joyal and the Honourable Dennis Patterson.

Thank you both for being here.

For members' information, former senator Charlie Watt was supposed to participate in this panel but he had a last-minute scheduling conflict with ITK, so he won't be joining us today.

It's kind of ironic, Mr. Patterson. I was at your committee last night, and now you're at my committee this morning. Senator Watt presented there too, and it was great to hear him. Just so the committee members know, the two witnesses last night at the Senate Arctic committee spoke in Inuktitut. That was great.

We'll turn the floor over to Senator Joyal.

Thank you for coming.

[Serge Joyal, Senator, Kennebec, Lib.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the members of the committee who have extended the invitation.

I am very pleased to be able to join you this morning.

I wish to provide the committee the context in which the Senate decided to allow the use of aboriginal languages, singularly Inuktitut, in the debates of the chamber and at the committee level.

That stems from 2006, so it's already a long time, as you know, 12 years ago. There were two Inuit senators, Senator Charlie Watt and Senator Adams. Senator Watt was appointed in 1984 and Senator Adams was appointed in 1977, so they were very long-standing senators. In all fairness, their first language is really Inuktitut; it's not English. When they tried to express themselves in English, for them it was like it is for me. I'm French-speaking, and when I speak in English, well, I have to make an additional effort. Concepts in one language, as you know, are difficult to translate into another language.

We noticed on the floor of the Senate that those two senators could not really take part as much, or as fully, as other senators could since they were not being allowed to use their language. There was a motion introduced on the floor of the chamber in 2006 by former Senator Corbin, who was an Acadian. The motion called on the Senate to study whether aboriginal people had the right to use their language in Parliament, and also, what we should be doing to make sure the system provided for the use of an aboriginal language as a third language group aside from English and French.

The question was referred to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. I happen to have been a member of that committee for the last 20 years. That gives you my age. Personally, I have always held that the aboriginal people of Canada should have the right to speak their language. I was Secretary of State for Canada from 1982 to 1984, and Mr. Bagnell will remember that I was the co-chair of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution in 1980-81. One of the key issues we had to deal with in those years—more than 38 years ago—was the recognition of the rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada; that is, section 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under the Constitution Act of 1982.

I'll read that section, because it's a very important element that you should take into consideration. Section 35 states:

The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

There's also paragraph 2(b) of the charter, which speaks about freedom of expression:

freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

The Supreme Court of Canada, through those years, has interpreted section 35 and paragraph 2(b), which is about freedom of expression. In one of its landmark decisions in the Haida case in 2004, the famous Supreme Court case, the court stated:

Put simply, Canada’s Aboriginal peoples were here when Europeans came, and were never conquered.

The conclusion is that they are there. They have their rights, their culture, and their identity. They have the right to express it and manifest it. This landmark case was preceded by another one in 1988, the Ford case, whereby the Supreme Court determined the scope of freedom of expression. What do we mean when we say that somebody has the right to express himself or herself? The court stated:

The “freedom of expression” guaranteed by s.2(b) of the Canadian Charter and s.3 of the Quebec Charter includes the freedom to express oneself in the language of one's choice. Language is so intimately related to the form and content of expression that there cannot be true freedom of expression by means of language if one is prohibited from using the language of one's choice. Language is not merely a means or medium of expression; it colours the content and meaning of expression. It is a means by which a people may express its cultural identity. It is also the means by which one expresses one's personal identity and sense of individuality. The recognition that "freedom of expression" includes the freedom to express oneself in the language of one's choice does not undermine or run counter to the express or specific guarantees of language rights in s. 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and ss. 16 to 23 of the Canadian Charter.

It applies to you and to us in the Senate.

In other words, section 133 states quite clearly that both languages could be used in the debates of the chamber of Parliament, and I will read section 133:

Either the English or the French Language may be used by any Person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those Languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses....

The courts stated quite clearly in 1988 that the use of a language other than English and French doesn't run counter to section 133. This is a very key issue, and we reflected upon that in the Senate when we had to review the basis on which a senator, in those instances, or a member of Parliament would decide to use a third group of languages. That would not run counter to section 133.

You would certainly know there is another section of the charter, section 22, that reads as follows, and I will read it for your benefit:

Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this Charter with respect to any language that is not English or French.

In other words, the charter recognized that there are other languages that have customary rights or legal rights. In the Senate in those days we were reflecting on that situation—and I remind you, that was in 2008, so it's already 10 years ago—we thought that to try to take the best means to allow a senator to speak his or her aboriginal language would not run contrary to the letter of the Constitution or to the rights that stem from the various decisions, the various treaty rights, and the general status of the aboriginal people in Canada.

Moreover since then there has been the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I want to draw your attention to sections 13 to 17 of the report. That was not contemplated in the Senate chamber, because that was prior to our use of aboriginal languages. I will read the first one, which is recommendation 13:

We call upon the federal government to acknowledge that Aboriginal rights include Aboriginal language rights.

In other words, not to recognize aboriginal rights if you recognize aboriginal language rights and think or pretend that you will recognize aboriginal rights is a contradiction.

That's what this bill in the Senate, Bill S-212, stems from. It's the third time I have introduced this bill in the Senate. It was introduced for the first time in 2009. It is entitled, An act for the advancement of the aboriginal languages of Canada and to recognize and respect aboriginal language rights. This bill has been adopted at second reading and it is currently at the aboriginal affairs committee in the Senate.

I want to stress that because on February 14 the Prime Minister made a formal statement in relation to the replacement of the Indian Act. I will read a paragraph of the Prime Minister's statement in Parliament. It was not long ago, a month or so.:

To guide the work of decolonizing Canadian laws and policies, we adopted principles respecting Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples.

To preserve, protect, and revitalize indigenous languages, we are working jointly with indigenous partners to develop a First Nations, Inuit, and Métis languages act.

That was the commitment of the government.

I think your work has to take place within that context. We have tried in the Senate, through our procedures—

I know my time is going on—

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

We have to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Have you almost finished?

Do we have the unanimous consent of the committee to let him finish here? We have half-hour bells.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Serge Joyal]

I'll conclude. I know the time is short. I understand the pressure under which you work and exercise your responsibilities.

I would draw your attention to that general context in which we are in an evolving situation. I met with the Minister of Heritage two years ago when I introduced that bill, to inform her that this was my third initiative in relation to that. She pledged to launch consultations with aboriginal leaders throughout all of Canada, and the government has fully committed to introducing a languages protection bill.

We in the Senate have shown that it is possible to have a third group of languages used, aboriginal languages specifically, by, of course, having the opportunity to inform the Senate clerk or the committees clerk before that group of languages is used, to make sure that there is an interpreter available and there is a capacity for that senator to use that language and to be understood. Presently, of course, anyone can use any language, but if he or she is not understood, then it's not worth the paper on which that statement is printed and that MP or senator cannot fully participate in the deliberative and legislative functions of the chamber.

We thought it would be possible to do that in the chamber. In the beginning there were objections, no doubt about that, and those who said asked, if we were to do it, what kind of precedent we would be creating for other languages and so forth. We canvassed those issues and we came to the conclusion that aboriginal people have a particular status. They have had constitutional protection through the years. As I said, they have never been conquered. They were there before my own ancestor arrived in 1649, who happened to be, by the way, a translator.

When the missionaries came to Canada in those years, they had to hire people to use as interpreters because none of the European settlers spoke aboriginal languages. The first thing they had to do was to learn aboriginal languages, because aboriginal languages were spoken. In those years, during the French regime and up to the Treaty of Paris of 1763, aboriginal leaders were speaking their aboriginal languages and not learning French; it was the French who were learning the aboriginal languages.

It's the situation now that they are trying to reintegrate into the Canadian mainstream, with their identity, with pride in speaking their languages. Of course, it is the responsibility of the Government of Canada, which through the residential school system obliterated aboriginal languages, to take the initiative and steps to reinstate for them the right to speak their languages.

It is in that context that the Senate took the initiative some 12 years ago to allow, progressively, the use of languages. Today, the two Inuit senators have retired from the Senate. Senator Adams has retired, and Senator Watt retired last month. There are no Inuit senators in the Senate presently. There are seven aboriginal senators in the chamber. We have devised a system through which it is possible to use an aboriginal language by, as I said, giving notice before so that there is an interpreter available and that there is a possibility for them to use their language effectively.

I certainly suggest to you to look into that carefully. Use the precedent that took place in the Senate. Senator Patterson was appointed in 2008 and came into the chamber just at the moment we were really recognizing the use of aboriginal languages. I think he could testify by himself on his experience in the Northwest Territories where there are—how many?—11 languages.

[Dennis Glen Patterson, Senator, Nunavut, C]

There are eight, plus French and English.

[Serge Joyal]

There are eight aboriginal languages plus French and English, and of course in Nunavut there are four languages.

The precedent of a legislature using an aboriginal language in Canada exists in the Northwest Territories and in Nunavut. In fact, there was a fact-finding mission of senators who went to Nunavut in 2008 to look into how it works and how it is integrated into the daily practice, because in Nunavut, 89% of the debate takes place in Inuktitut.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Patterson, how long is your brief?

[Dennis Glen Patterson]

Tell me how much time. I'm open. I was told roughly 10 minutes. I can probably make it shorter than that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

If you could do it in five...because we have to go and vote. We'll be back from the vote at 12 o'clock, and our next witnesses are supposed to be at 12 o'clock.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Chair, will we have an opportunity to question these witnesses at 12 o'clock?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We could try to extend into the next witnesses' time a bit.

Can you stay a few minutes after 12 o'clock?

[Serge Joyal]

I can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. Why don't you give us the first five minutes, and then we'll go to vote?