Official Languages Committee on April 18th, 2013

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

My question is for Mr. Gourde, Mr. Trottier and my esteemed colleagues of the government party.

They are right in saying that a preamble is not necessary, but it is useful. That is why the vast majority of bills have a preamble. This time, the government has made the exceptional decision to strike the preamble.

We therefore immediately suspect that you do not approve of the preamble. However, I cannot believe that one of the three parties represented in the House of Commons is opposed to the following:

Whereas the Constitution provides that English and French are the official languages of Canada;

I cannot believe that the party of Brian Mulroney and all the others who followed him are opposed to that idea. That makes no sense.

The second paragraph of the preamble reads as follows:

Whereas English and French have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of Parliament;

We all agree on that. If one colleague disagreed, that would be quite staggering, Mr. Chair, particularly coming from the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

The third paragraph of the preamble states:

Whereas members of the Senate and the House of Commons have the right to use English or French during parliamentary debates and proceedings;

Well, we have this right. I don't see why we'd question that. There is no reason to be against these three paragraphs. You're telling us it's so obvious that we don't need them. You may make this argument, but you cannot make that argument for the last one. The last one is in a category that I would call helpful.

That explains the purpose of the bill. We know it, but legislators in 5, 10 or 20 years will have to know it as well. That is what a preamble is for. The purpose of a preamble is to remind the legislators of tomorrow why the legislators of today wanted to adopt this bill. The preamble explains it very clearly:

And whereas persons appointed with the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament must be able to communicate with members of those Houses in both official languages;

This is the only place where it is mentioned. If you strike this paragraph, no one will know why the bill exists. We have a list of names, but no one will know what they are for. Here we are told that they are individuals elected by both Houses. This clause is useful. The others may be obvious, but sometimes it is good to recall that our country is bilingual and that its two official languages are equal.

I therefore ask the government party to tell us its reasons for striking this preamble.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This proposed preamble is self-evident. It is already in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You say it appears nowhere else, but that is false, since it already appears as is in the charter. So it merely repeats something that already exists. I believe we simply do not need to weigh down the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Dion, you have the floor.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Perhaps I was unclear.

The first three paragraphs do address well-established facts. Since they are well established, we do not need to strike them. We can leave them there; they will do no harm. If you feel that clutters the bill, that is not that serious.

However, the fourth paragraph is useful because it gives us information that explains the purpose of the bill. If we strike it, we no longer know the bill's purpose. You and I know it, all our colleagues and the people in this room know it, but, in 10 or 20 years, people will have to refer to the proceedings of this committee to know it. If it is in the preamble, it will be clear for all Canadians, not just for legislators.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

Mr. O'Toole, go ahead, please.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think my colleagues on the other side have said a number of things that are talking around the subject of legislative intent, and that the preamble, in Mr. Dion's words, is the only way that 10 years from now, people....

The best way to decide the legislative intent of an act from a legal standpoint is actually through the debates in the House. Madame Latendresse, who is here, spoke about her reasons for introducing a bill in the House of Commons. It passed unanimously several weeks ago. She's here now watching intently. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that this is how people 10 years from now will see how the legislative intent from that bill came forth, from the House.

The preamble does serve some purposes, but to put it out there as the only way for us to really uncover the roots of this act is not accurate. I would suggest that the debates in Hansard, including Madame Latendresse's passionate remarks in the House and in committee, give that context very clearly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. O'Toole, for your legal views.

Mr. Dion, you have the floor.

Then we will hear from Mr. Godin.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I appreciate that, Mr. O'Toole. I would suggest something slightly different.

The preamble is the best way. If I said “the only way”, I was indeed wrong. It's the best way because it's the easiest way. You don't need to go into the archives. You have it right in front of you when you see the bill. Usually we go to the archives to see the debates when there is controversy, when there are questions about the intent of a bill. But when there is no controversy, when it's only to remind us what the purpose was, that's why we have a preamble.

It's not helpful to eradicate the full preamble as you are proposing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dion.

Monsieur Godin.

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

I hear Mr. O'Toole, but at the same time I don't know if he's a lawyer. It looks like he's a lawyer.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

He is a lawyer.

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

I know lawyers get paid for every minute they work. Maybe they'll get more money to go look into the history of Parliament and read everything that has happened and all the minutes, and that way he could get paid. I don't know. I'm not accusing Mr. O'Toole of that.

But if I were a lawyer, which I am not, and I'm doing my research and I read a bill, I think it's nice to see it right there and not have to go anywhere. Not being a lawyer, I don't get paid per minute.

I think it's just information and it is a small paragraph. If what Mr. O'Toole is saying is right, then I'd like to see if we're going to see any preambles that are repetitive in any of the other bills coming out in one year, two years, or four years.

I think this just shows the willingness of the government to accept that.... Finally they are saying for people named by the Parliament and the Senate, here it is and here's the reason for it. It is because they are named by Parliament. Then when you read it, you don't have to go look at all those minutes because it takes a long time. You have to know how to do it, how to get in there and get all the Hansards and what have you.

At the same time, I don't know why we didn't take the list and add the president of Radio-Canada and the chair of Radio-Canada and of the CRTC, because they all really have to be bilingual. We might as well work on the list right now and then we don't have to come back to it.

What we want to include are those who are named by Parliament, which is clear and was part of the preamble.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Benskin, you have the floor.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

We said why we needed the preamble.

How do you feel having the preamble hurts this bill? How do you feel having the preamble limits how this bill can work?

From our perspective, we've talked about why we feel it's important to have the preamble in there, but I'm really not understanding how the preamble hurts the implementation of this bill if it stays.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Benskin. I'm not sure I can answer your question.

Are there any further interventions on the preamble?

Shall the preamble carry?

Sorry?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Is it possible to vote on each paragraph of the preamble?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

No.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Because I made the argument that the three first paragraphs are something we know and are good to repeat, but that the fourth one is something helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

No.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

There is a difference in the nature of these four paragraphs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

No, it is not possible. If you want to move an amendment to the preamble—

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

—we can vote on this amendment and then the preamble as amended.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

When may I propose the amendment? Will it be after they have destroyed the preamble or before it?