Justice Committee on May 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

There will be opportunity for debate immediately afterwards.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

No, I want to know if it is in order. My point of order is whether or not this amendment is in order. As the mover of this motion, I say it is not, because it was not my intention to refer to both official languages. It is French which is being threatened.

My point of order has to do with whether or not the amendment is in order. This is a real point of order, Mr. Lee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Madam Jennings submitted an amendment to the motion, and it hits directly onto the motion. That was in order.

Mr. Lee, I assume, is moving a subamendment to the amendment.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Not at all, I'm moving an amendment, a stand-alone.

Sure, I'll just give notice of my intention to move that amendment and we'll continue debate on Madam Jennings' amendment, but I'll finish my remarks.

I know Ms. Jennings' amendment is intended to narrow the focus of this specifically so it incorporates the principles of the Official Languages Act, and I can't believe anybody around this table would not agree with that objective.

One of the categories of appointments that do not fall within the scope of the official language objective is judicial appointments, and they're made on another basis equally consistent with the charter and our Constitution, but they don't fall within the ambit of these types of appointments. So I support the amendment and I'll move my other amendment later.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Thompson.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I'm just hoping that in the middle of all of this conversation and this debate we're having that we don't lose sight of one thing. I know Mr. Ménard said they're not questioning the skills and the ability of Mr. Sullivan, but when we're getting into this debate, I just hope we don't end up with something that would prevent us ever in the future from having the right person doing the right job.

I'm saying that because I have had 14 years here working with a number of victims, and on several occasions I involved Mr. Sullivan in the work that we did. On one specific occasion, the victim could not speak English. That made it rather difficult for me and Mr. Sullivan at the time, but we rectified it very quickly, because we can do that. We had services available to us and it was rectified.

So I hope we don't lose sight of the fact that future appointments could eliminate the very best qualified person for the job, and I wouldn't want to end up with anything that would prevent that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have three comments that I would like to make. First of all, I would like to remind Mr. Petit that he has confused several legal concepts, and yet each is distinctive. Section 15, which deals with the right to live without discrimination, or more specifically, the right to equal opportunities, was included in the Charter in 1982 but came into effect in 1985.

My motion does not deal with discrimination. I do not understand how Mr. Petit was able to claim that we cannot pass the motion because the prohibited grounds for discrimination in the Canadian Charter of Human Rights do not include language. The issue here is not discrimination or non-discrimination. The issue is that, under the Official Languages Act, people appointed to strategic positions that are sufficiently important within the federal public service must be, as one of their primary qualifications, able to function in both languages.

I find it is intellectually dishonest to say the least, to suggest that the problem is equally serious in both official languages. There is no member of Parliament at this table, whether he is a unilingual anglophone or not, who could give us an example of francophone appointees who cannot speak English.

I remind you that at the first caucus meeting of the Bloc Québécois—my colleague Mr. Lemay was not there—when we were elected in 1993, the first thing that our leader Lucien Bouchard asked of us was to learn to speak English. The automatic reaction of francophones, on the whole, is to learn to speak English.

Mr. Chairman, it is rather amazing to see that people who have been in Parliament for 13, 15 or 20 years have never bothered to try to learn to speak French. We cannot, of course, oblige our democratically elected officials to become bilingual. However, when one is working for one's fellow citizens, when one is appointed, we are no longer talking about the democratic process. We are paid with public funds and we must serve. It's the least you could do to respect francophones and speak their language.

This issue has nothing to do with section 15, and I do not even understand why we are discussing it. It should be a given that people who are appointed to strategic positions speak French.

I was a member of this committee when Marshall Rothstein, a former University of Manitoba professor, was appointed by the Minister of Justice Vic Toews. The competency argument is spurious and dishonest. The fact that people are competent in their area cannot exempt them from having to know French.

How could the government have been so insensitive as to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court who cannot speak French? He was appointed by a minister who himself cannot speak French. We are not talking about a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, where there are more people who speak Cantonese than French, but a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. French is of so little importance to this government that the Prime Minister chose to appoint a Minister of Heritage who does not speak French. When we call a cabinet minister's office and ask to be served in French, we are spoken to in "Frenglish". And I could go on.

I would find it abominable that we not pass this motion. None of the subterfuges or specious arguments that anyone could find to distort the motion will change the fact that if we respect French in this country that is Canada, we expect that people who are in strategic positions will speak the language.

If the committee does not pass this motion, the Bloc Québécois will change its report to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Tonks.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I speak acknowledging that I haven't been on this committee and I certainly don't know the legalities with respect to the substance of this motion, but on the practical side of it, I'm persuaded by both of the points that have been put forward by Ms. Jennings and Mr. Lee.

First of all, we come to the table this morning with precedents and law that have been a subject for decades, and we have reached a position where surely we can be consistent with that legal position, which has been articulated by Ms. Jennings, and which is basically the overriding thought, if you will, that we have an Official Languages Act and that everything we do with respect to our duality of languages should be in keeping with both the spirit and the legal intent of that act.

I really think that we're beating the heck out of an issue that legitimately is before us. Certainly we should revisit from time to time the very essence of what our federalism and our country is about, but if we're going to at this time create new law...and I don't think that's the intent of the motion. The motion is very general, actually. The motion just says to write the minister to ask him not to. It isn't to direct him or whatever. It is, in making appointments, to establish and adhere to the convention that a working knowledge of both languages is reasonable with respect to the job description. I would think that this committee should find that compelling to support the motion as amended by Ms. Jennings.

As a layperson on this committee for the first time, I'm giving you what I think the average Canadian would say. They would agree with Mr. Lee that we're really not at this point embarking on breaking new ground. We're in fact confirming old ground if we support the amendment that's been put forward by Ms. Jennings. Unless there is someone on the committee...and I congratulate Mr. Petit on his analysis; I found it intriguing and I do thank him for the work that he put into it on the weekend. But I don't think even his argument was in contradiction to the general spirit, tone, tenure, and thrust of this motion. I say that with great respect.

I think we should get on with the vote. I won't speak any further. I will be supporting Ms. Jennings' motion for the reasons that I've outlined.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with Mr. Tonks on his last statement that we should get on with the vote. Mr. Tonks said we're beating the heck out of the issue. Mr. Lemay said we're beating around the bush. Mr. Ménard said he can't believe we're debating this. So let's get on with it and vote.

I've already said at our last meeting why I wouldn't be supporting this, because I think it's critical of the appointment that was made of Mr. Sullivan, who is making every effort to become fluent in both official languages. Services under his mandate are going to be offered in both official languages. We fully support both official languages. But I'm not going to support a motion that in essence, I believe, will condemn the appointment of Mr. Sullivan.

If everyone knows how they're voting, let's get on and vote, and we can move on to committee business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We have two witnesses. I have to apologize on behalf of the committee for making you sit through all of this. I know you're here for another reason. I do appreciate Mr. Tremblay's position too.

Mr. Dykstra, you're last on the list.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I just have a question of clarification more than anything else. It's in regard to Ms. Jennings' repositioning of the final sentence: “, as defined by the Official Languages Act”. I'm not going to be voting in favour of the amendment, but in terms of clarification, it leaves it a little vague as to whether or not the “as defined by the Official Languages Act” sentence, at least in English, actually points to the fact that it.... Is it the working knowledge of French, as defined by the Official Languages Act, or the appointment to strategic positions, as defined by the Official Languages Act? You could take it both ways. You could say, well, are strategic positions actually defined in the Official Languages Act or...?

I know what your intent is, but the actual wording of it leads one to believe it could one or the other rather than one specific. So she may want to clarify the point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Clearly, it's the issue of strategic positions. I thought it was quite clear, and it appears from the debate that has occurred on my amendment that it was clear to everyone. If there appears to be some ambiguity, I'm open to suggestions as to language that would clarify it, but I thought it was quite clear.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Are strategic positions defined in the Official Languages Act?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I know that the official languages committee undertook a review of this whole issue of appointments and recently, I believe, came out with a report or recommendation that actually refers to the definition of what a strategic position is under the Official Languages Act.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

We'll get on with the vote. The vote is on the amendment as presented by Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

May we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We'll record the vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Now we'll move to Mr. Ménard's motion.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I had an amendment, Mr. Chair, so I'll move the amendment quickly, with no debate.

I move that in the first preamble, the words “French language” be replaced with the words “both official languages”.

I'm not going to debate it, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You may not want to, but is there debate?

The vote is on the amendment presented by Mr. Lee.