Evidence of meeting #69 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I call to order the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
This is Tuesday, May 15. I trust everyone has a copy of the agenda before them.
Our first order of business is a motion from Monsieur Réal Ménard.
9:05 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Would you not like us to wait a bit, for your colleagues and some Liberal members?
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
We're dealing with a motion. It's as though they were sitting right next to us. We haven't started work on Bill C-23.
9:05 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I've gotten an education, you know. I finished my law degree. I wrote my final exam. In fact, I'm still waiting for your congratulations.
Mr. Chairman, this is a motion which I wish to submit to the committee and see passed unanimously. I'll say it again, I would be very hurt if the committee were to be divided on this matter. I would like to point two things out. First off, unlike what Mr. Lee would have you believe, it does not have to do with judges. We know full well that it is not up to us to decide whether judges appointed in British Columbia need to be bilingual. But for strategic positions, where someone would serve as a spokesperson, arbitrate and serve society as a whole, of course we would expect that individual to function at an adequate level in both languages.
I believe the government has developed a bad habit. What I'm saying regarding judges should of course not apply to Supreme Court justices. How disappointed we were to hear that former justice minister Vic Toews' professor had been appointed to the Supreme Court without knowledge of French. The government added insult to injury by appointing a unilingual anglophone as the ombudsman for victims of crime. We are not calling into question his abilities, obviously not, but he is unilingual.
I think it is our duty, as a committee, to clearly establish that for strategic positions, we expect candidates to know both languages. It is not enough to want to learn the second language, they must know both. What would be your reaction, Mr. Chairman, if an appointee were to be a unilingual francophone? I don't think you would accept that. Yet, the Minister for Canadian Heritage does not speak French. That is also the case of several parliamentary secretaries. The situation has deteriorated. These days, when we call cabinet ministers' offices, it is practically a privilege to be able to speak to someone in French.
It is time we put a stop to this. That is why I would expect my motion to be unanimously adopted by this committee. I know that my colleague has already expressed her support and I thank her for it. It is very frustrating for francophones to see that the status of their language is not respected.
I will stop here, but I expect a unanimous vote.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you.
I thank you for being here.
I studied Mr. Ménard's motion. He had me working all weekend on it, so, of course, I was unable to attend your convention. While I accept Mr. Ménard's comments regarding linguistic duality in Canada, I thought it would be wise to start by assessing the admissibility of this motion. I had some research done by the analysts at the Library of Parliament, who detected a problem.
Section 15 of the Charter is the reference we turn to for all grounds of discrimination. In Canada, grounds for discrimination could be national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Only in section 7(c) of the Republished Statutes of the Yukon and in section 10 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms do we see reference made to language. Therefore, it is only pursuant to those statutes that language may be considered as grounds for discrimination in the case of an appointment. That is not the case for the Canadian Charter, which we are governed by.
We did, however, look into whether there had been cases which could make Mr. Ménard's motion admissible from a legal standpoint. We looked into the words "in particular" which are used in the Charter, and assessed whether any analogous grounds could make this motion, which is otherwise quite good, acceptable from a legal standpoint. Analogous grounds recognized by the courts are different from those I have just referred to. They are citizenship, matrimonial status, sexual orientation and place of residence.
Once I had completed this work, I had to go a bit further and look into whether any ruling had been made. To date in Canada, no ruling would allow us to accept the wording of Mr. Ménard's motion. In fact, if we were to be dealing in the general sense with public service employees, then perhaps there would be an issue. Indeed, jobs are classified as bilingual, given the fact that it is impossible for people who work directly with the public to use interpreters. You cannot always have an interpreter at the immigration counter. It would mean duplication of staff throughout Canada, in all provinces.
I then wondered whether there were exceptions. With respect to the ombudsman, Mr. Sullivan, I wondered what type of legislation these people were subject to and what the criteria were. I discovered that we were dealing with the terms and conditions of employment for full-time governor in council appointees. So, there is the Public Service Employment Act and the provisions which, through the governor- in-council, would affect the positions of deputy minister and above. Well, in their case, official language rules do not apply. I would have accepted Mr. Ménard's position without a second thought, but this problem is a hindrance.
Of course, I said to myself: perhaps there may be a small detail in the legislation which would settle this problem. I looked into the regulations of the act we have just referred to, but was unable to find anything at all. Official languages are referred to in section 4 of the act and regulations, but there is no loophole.
The only loophole I found was provided by the Liberals in 2005. They had too many problems to deal with. In May 2005, Mr. Rodriguez was Chair of the Official Languages Committee. This committee issued a report containing recommendation 13, which reads as follows:
The Committee recommends that the Privy Council Office require that those appointed to deputy minister positions meet the CBC requirements in the second official language.
The letter "C" represents the highest level of reading comprehension, the letter "B" the intermediate level for written communications, and the letter "C" the highest level for oral interaction in the second official language. The Liberals issued this recommendation, but they didn't implement it. They would have had the time to do so because in May 2005 the elections had not yet been called. They left the recommendation on hold, as they tend to do for certain things.
At the end of the day, the motion does not work. You cannot ask a government, of any stripe, to do something that is not allowed by the rules, including those created by the Liberals in 1968 at the time of the adoption of the Official Languages Act. This is not a recent problem, it dates back to 1968. The Liberals passed legislation, but they didn't think of everything. They have had 30 years to do so, but they did not.
I understand and I support the spirit of Mr. Ménard's motion, but I cannot support it in its current form. You cannot demand something which is a violation of rules. And you cannot ask for an appointment not to be made. That is a sovereign power, the power of the king, the power of government. You cannot ask it not to make an appointment. The government decides and is accountable to the public.
Well, that's it when it comes to the substance. With respect to the form, there is one other aspect which you should also consider. I cannot really speak to the English version of this motion, because of my level of fluency in English, but I did carefully read the French motion. The motion states:
Be it resolved that, through the chairman, the Committee write to the Minister of Justice to ask him not to make appointments of persons who do not have a working knowledge of French at the time of their appointment to strategic positions.
You cannot say "who do not have a working knowledge of French". If you're going to adopt a motion on official languages, it has to consider both languages, not one alone. If we want to claim to have equality, we should require both languages, in other words: "who do not have a working knowledge of both official languages" and not only "French".
As to the form, I would point out to Mr. Ménard that the Official Languages Act does not apply in Quebec. It applies in every other province except Quebec because we are excluded from its application.
That would mean that if, in Quebec, we were to appoint a unilingual anglophone to a position we could not, under the Quebec Charter, under our own laws, tell him not to sit or not to be appointed because the language criterion in Quebec is a grounds for discrimination. So, if I were to appoint someone who only spoke English, I could not discriminate against him for that. That is one issue with respect to the form.
Before we impose anything on people throughout Canada, we should see whether the issue would even apply in our own provinces. I would say no. I do not think you should accept the substance of this. I would recommend that the spirit of Mr. Ménard's motion be respected, I find it is quite appropriate, but the form and the use of this motion should not be accepted.
That is my opinion. I can say no more, because I have not studied this matter in any greater detail than that. Thank you.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you, Mr. Petit.
That's a fair amount of work you actually did over the weekend, it sounds like.
Madam Jennings.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you.
For the record, I'd like to correct a statement that Mr. Petit made to the effect that the Official Languages Act does not apply in Quebec. He is incorrect. It does in fact apply in Quebec.
It's for the very reason that it does apply in Quebec that the previous Commissioner of Official Languages, Dyane Adam, undertook a series of investigations into complaints from CUPW members who worked at Canada Post, an English-speaking minority, who filed complaints about the fact that their supervisors in Canada Post were issuing directives to employees in French only and that they were not able to receive proper direction and supervision in their language of choice, which was English. Madame Adam found that there was discrimination under the Official Languages Act.
So just to correct that, it does in fact apply in Quebec.
Now, as to the motion—
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Wait a minute. That is not true. I won't allow it.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Point of order. That is not true. Canada Post is a crown corporation, and you know that the Official Languages Act applies to crown corporations, even if they are located in Quebec. Do not try to tell me that the Official Languages Act applies outside of federal agencies, because that is not true.
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Order, please.
I don't know if we need to clarify that point right now—though I guess we could. I don't know if Mr. Tremblay would know anything about that.
Mr. Moore.
May 15th, 2007 / 9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
The witnesses are here for Bill C-23, not to engage in a debate on Mr. Ménard's motion.
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
We can ask the question. Does the Official Languages Act apply in Quebec, Mr. Tremblay?
9:15 a.m.
Marc Tremblay General Counsel and Director, Official Languages Law Group, Department of Justice
The Official Languages Act applies to federal institutions. Federal institutions include a number of agencies which fall under federal jurisdiction, as defined by the act. There are approximately 200 institutions. That said, with respect to provincial areas of jurisdiction, indeed, the Quebec Charter of the French Language governs language issues for institutions which fall in the Quebec government's jurisdiction.
