Official Languages Committee on April 16th, 2013

[Graham Fraser]

Yes. It might not be necessary in an ideal world, but an incident that occurred, and that I mentioned in my remarks, has shown us that it seems to be a necessary protection. It represents significant protection for parliamentarians and for Canadians, who should have a right to understand agents of Parliament when they present their reports, give press conferences or make speeches.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

With your permission, I will let Ms. Michaud continue asking questions.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you very much.

First of all, I too am going to reiterate my appreciation of the comments you made on the preamble issue. What we see here is that it really helps us reassert principles, the fundamental values of this country and the importance of bilingualism. That has all been disregarded in the past. As you said so well, you have not yet heard any valid arguments in favour of striking the preamble. I will not ask you to compromise yourself on that point, but personally, if we wanted to remove it, I would see no other reason for it than a lack of political will to strengthen bilingualism in Canada.

Which brings me to my question. At our last meeting, an objection was raised to the effect that Bill C-419 did not reflect the constitutional right of the incumbents of agent of Parliament offices to address Parliament in the official language of their choice. Can you comment on that interpretation of the bill? I do not view the matter in that light and I would like to hear your opinion on the subject.

[Graham Fraser]

I see nothing in the bill that excludes section 133 of the British North America Act. The Constitution Act, 1867 very clearly establishes that English and French are the official languages that may be used in Parliament. That right is reasserted in subsection 17(1) of the charter. I see nothing in this bill that extinguishes the right of any person to use the language of his or her choice before Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud and Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Gourde, you have one minute.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Tremblay, earlier you said that the preamble was important for the purpose of defining clause 3. Is that indeed what you said?

[Johane Tremblay]

Pardon me, but I did not understand the end of your question.

[Graham Fraser]

I did not hear the question.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

My question is for Ms. Tremblay.

Earlier you explained to us that the preamble was important for the purpose of defining clause 3, of providing guidance and direction to the Governor in Council. Did you in fact say that?

[Johane Tremblay]

Yes, I did say that.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Fraser—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

I have not finished, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I want to ensure that Ms. Tremblay understands that we are not talking here about clause 2, which contains a list of persons. Clause 3 is not that.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

No, no.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I want to make sure she understood the question because it is important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Madame Tremblay, could you clarify that?

[Johane Tremblay]

In fact, as I said earlier, the preamble helps clearly define the scope of the bill and thus in fact guides the decision of the Governor in Council where it decides to add, by order, additional offices to the list of 10 offices set out in the bill.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

You understood my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. Thank you very much for that clarification.

We will suspend for five minutes to allow the witnesses at the table to depart if they so wish. Then we'll resume to consider this bill clause by clause.

Ms. Tremblay, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Giguère and Ms. Charlebois, thank you very much for your evidence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We now resume our meeting, which is public.

We will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-419.

On the orders of the day, you will see under the section “Clause-by-Clause Consideration”, the order in which we will consider this bill.

What we will do as a committee is begin with the consideration of clause 2, then proceed to clauses 3 and 4, then to the short title, then to the preamble, and then to the full title. Then we'll adopt three routine motions to report the bill back to the House. We'll begin with clause 2. The committee has the option with each of the clauses to carry it unamended, to negative the clause, in other words, to strike the clause, or to present an amendment, which we can then debate.

(On clause 2—Requirements)

I understand there are a number of amendments that are going to be proposed, so I'll give the floor to Mr. Gourde for the first amendment.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move an amendment to the first paragraph of clause 2. I would like to delete the middle portion which reads as follows:

...English and French without the aid of an interpreter and to express himself or herself clearly in...

With the amendment I am moving, the sentence would read as follows:

Any person appointed to any of the following offices must, at the time of his or her appointment, be able to speak and understand both official languages:

Have you received copies of the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde, for your amendment. Before we continue with the discussion of the amendment, I want to ensure that all members have a printed copy of that amendment, so we'll have that distributed and wait until all members have that amendment.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

That is not necessary since there is no change to paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j).