Excellent. What a wonderful place, this country of ours.
Mr. Kong, I graduated from the faculty of law at the Université de Moncton way back when. Pierre Foucher taught me constitutional law. You may know him. I was one of those students who cursed constitutional law. Today, being in Canada’s Parliament, I realize it is the proverbial umbrella protecting the rights of all Canadians, safeguarding our entire mosaic and all the other laws.
I’m not going to tell you whether I’m for or against an administrative tribunal. That said, two official languages commissioners told the committee that it wasn’t all that important to have a tribunal. According to them, what mattered a whole lot more was having a clear and specific act devoid of any ambiguity. When you have a clear, specific and unambiguous act with teeth, you have less need for an administrative tribunal. I just wanted to hear your take on that.
You know as well as I do that Commonwealth countries have historically delegated matters to administrative tribunals in order to relieve pressure on the court system. A parallel system of administrative tribunals emerged so that certain sectors could deal with so-called specialized matters. The original intent was to relieve pressure on the court system.
The official languages commissioners noted that, with the creation of an administrative tribunal, citizens wanting to have their language rights respected would have to invest time and energy in long and often costly proceedings.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on that. Are we better off with an administrative tribunal or a clear and specific act, or both?