Evidence of meeting #48 for Official Languages in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
Thank you for your question.
From a legal standpoint, I don't think the provision would have any unintended consequences on the Official Languages Act, a statute that aims to advance official languages equality. That said, I'm not on the inside; sometimes the courts can hand down surprising rulings.
On the face of it, nothing in the amendment appears to undermine the purpose of the act, which is to advance language rights and enhance the vitality of linguistic minority communities.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Since no one else wants to comment, we will proceed with the vote on BQ‑5.1.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
We are now on BQ‑6, which is on page 31 of the amendments package.
Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
This amendment is consistent with what we just adopted, but goes a bit further.
First, it would add new subsection 3.2(1), as follows:
For greater certainty, the implementation of this Act shall be carried out in accordance with the jurisdiction and powers of the provinces and territories, including with the Charter of the French language.
When it comes to linguistic planning in Quebec, I don't think the federal government should interfere, but it should at least adhere to the Charter of the French Language, which seeks to make French the official language and common language of Quebec. This is the condition to ensure the survival of French in Quebec and therefore in Canada and North America.
Next, the amendment would add new subsection 3.2(2), as follows:
Where there is a conflict, the Charter of the French language prevails over the incompatible provisions of this Act.
We know that the Official Languages Act sometimes interferes in areas under provincial jurisdiction in order to make English the official language, which has the result of encouraging newcomers to favour English. That is what we want to avoid. We want to ensure that the Charter of the French Language can apply, so that newcomers can integrate and learn French at a rate that will maintain the demographic weight of francophones.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.
From time to time, in the course of clause-by-cause consideration, the chair has to decide whether a proposed amendment is in order or not. In this case, I have to tell you, Mr. Beaulieu, that your amendment is out of order.
Bill C‑13 amends the Official Languages Act by providing for certain measures to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society. Under your amendment, in the event of conflicting statutes, the Charter of the French Language prevails over the incompatible provisions of the federal act.
Page 770 of the third edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states the following:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
The chair is of the view that giving precedence to a provincial law is a new concept, which is beyond the scope of the bill as passed by the House of Commons at second reading. Accordingly, I find the amendment to be out of order, unfortunately.
Is everything okay, Mr. Beaulieu? This is the first time this has happened in quite a while, so I just want to remind you that you have the right to challenge the chair's decision.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Yes.
Basically, it relates to proposed subsection 3.2(2), if I'm not mistaken, or does it affect the entire amendment?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
It affects BQ‑6 in its entirety. I must rule it out of order.
If there are no further comments, we will move on to—
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Very well.
That is your right, Mr. Beaulieu.
The chair's decision has been challenged.
Procedure dictates that the committee vote on whether to uphold the chair's decision or not. The committee will now vote on the following motion:
That the decision of the chair be sustained.
I will now ask the clerk to hold the vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 10; nays 1)
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Shall clause 6 as amended carry?
Seeing no objections or abstentions, I declare clause 6 adopted unanimously.
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Shall clause 7 as laid out in the bill carry?
Seeing no objections, I declare clause 7 adopted unanimously.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
We are now on clause 8.
Shall clause 8 carry?
(Clause 8 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
We now go to clause 9.
Shall clause 9 carry?
(Clause 9 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
That brings us to clause 10.
Shall clause 10 carry?
(Clause 10 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Now we go to BQ‑7, which is on page 32 of the amendments package.
Over to you, Mr. Beaulieu.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
We just adopted clause 10, and if I understand correctly, BQ‑7 also pertains to that clause.
If we've adopted clause 10—
4:50 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible—Editor]
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
BQ‑7 would add the following:
The choice of either official language by a person appearing before a federal court shall not be prejudicial to that person and, in particular, shall not affect the number of judges or other officers who hear the case, where the court in question sits with a panel of more than one judge or other officer.
This amendment is symbolic for Quebec. We believe that, from a legal standpoint, it could have a significant impact on safeguarding the rights of francophones outside Quebec.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Since we have legal experts here, I'd like them to comment on the issue's significance as it relates to the separation of powers.
The amendment is in order. That's not in question. I would simply like more information on the part of the amendment that deals specifically with the separation of powers.
Isn't there an important issue that should be raised in connection with this amendment?
4:50 p.m.
Senior General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
In the justice department's view, the separation of powers is a basic principle of our constitutional framework.
The Supreme Court places significant emphasis on the principle's importance. In fact, parliamentary privilege, a principle that members of the House of Commons hold dear, is somewhat based on the separation of powers.
For that reason, we have always been very careful to ensure that, when provisions of the Official Languages Act or other acts interfere with the administration of justice, they do not affect the administrative role of the chief justice or of other judges within their courts, even indirectly. That has always been important.
That said, the provisions of part III of the Official Languages Act, 1988 version, did impose obligations on federal courts, including the new duty that judges be able to understand the parties to the proceedings conducted before the court without the assistance of an interpreter.
Back in 1988, it was felt that the federal courts would be able to comply with that provision. It was a different kettle of fish for the Supreme Court, but things changed over time with the appointment of bilingual judges and so forth.
Accordingly, we must always strive not to infringe on the court's internal management or the prerogatives of every chief justice regarding the composition of the court where it sits with a panel of judges or other officers.
I'll leave it there for now.