Evidence of meeting #55 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 move.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Between the presentation of the content and the presentation of the arguments, you could have intervened on this subject.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
That's at your discretion, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
So I was saying, Mr. Beaulieu, that you are within your rights to challenge the chair's ruling.
This motion is not subject to debate, so we'll move on to a vote right away.
The question is whether the chair's ruling should be sustained.
(Ruling of the chair sustained; yeas 10; nays 1)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
That brings us to clause 24, which was not amended.
Is clause 24 agreed to?
Bloc
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
That brings us to clause 25 and amendment CPC‑41.
Mr. Godin, you have the floor.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Okay, thank you.
Before we proceed, I must tell you that if amendment CPC‑41 is agreed to, amendments LIB‑27, NDP‑11, LIB‑28, NDP‑12, BQ‑50 and LIB‑30 cannot be proposed because of a line conflict.
Are there any questions about amendment CPC‑41?
Seeing that there are none, we will proceed to a vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
I was following you. I already announced the vote, but I will put that on pause to give you a moment.
Is that okay, Mr. Godin?
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Chair, amendment CPC‑41 is very important, in our view, because it strengthens Bill C‑13. I would say that it reaffirms the effect of amendment CPC‑7 regarding Treasury Board and the role of the central agency. If the committee wants to be consistent, I think all parties should agree to amendment CPC‑41.
Shall I read it out, Mr. Chair?
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
It's just that the amendment is long. I was hesitating since we do not have much time.
Allow me to summarize.
If we agree to this amendment, it would make Treasury Board entirely responsible for the application of the Official Languages Act and ensuring that measures are taken to achieve the act's objectives.
I think the committee must be consistent in its work and make sure amendment CPC‑41 is agreed to. It is a major amendment, which once again confirms what all official-language minority community organizations have requested, namely, that there be just one boss.
At present, four or five people are responsible for the implementation of the act. So the responsibility is divided and it gets lost. There is the Minister of Official Languages, who is not even mentioned in the act. There is also the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.
We want to centralize this responsibility. I think it makes a lot of sense to have just one boss. That does not mean that the others will not play a role, but that person would be the watchdog and would hold others to account for obtaining results.
That is why amendment CPC‑41 expands this notion to all of Bill C‑13. This notion appears at the beginning of the bill, but I think it must be strengthened. I expect my colleagues who supported amendment CPC‑7 to follow suit and not weaken what was decided at the outset or obstruct the process intended to give Treasury Board tools. I think this is very important.
If I may, Mr. Chair, I have a question for Ms. Boyer.
Who will be responsible for the implementation of the proposed clause 44.1, which pertains to Citizenship and Immigration?
That is one example. I could have mentioned any other department.
Julie Boyer Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you very much.
When the act makes a minister responsible for something, the minister mentioned is responsible. In this case, it would be the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
What happens if, for some reason, the minister does not comply with the act or does not achieve the objective within the prescribed timeframe? Will the prime minister, Parliament or some other body require them to comply with the Official Languages Act?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions, Department of Canadian Heritage
I will let Mr. Newman take that question.
Warren Newman Senior General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
We have to bear in mind that there are principles involved in the application of such a broad act, which applies to all parliamentary and government institutions.
Among those principles is the separation of powers. For instance, Treasury Board cannot be made responsible for ensuring the implementation of parts I and II of the Official Languages Act, which apply to Parliament and its houses, or of part III, which pertains to the administration of justice.
Among the other constitutional principles at play is the concept of responsible government. The minister is always accountable to Parliament and to MPs. Of course the act already includes monitoring mechanisms. With respect to policy, the act relies on the good faith of all ministers and all those responsible for its implementation.
I think these aspects also have to be considered.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I understand what you are saying, Mr. Newman. Yet if we are here today considering a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act, it is precisely because we relied on the principle of good governance in the past. I am not accusing anyone, but the facts are clear: we are witnessing the continuing decline of French.
In the past, a number of departments did not do their job and no one was able to hold them to account or require them to achieve results. That is why we want to a single body that can require every department and every federal institution to uphold the Official Languages Act. From my understanding, there are three possibilities: Privy Council, Finance or Treasury Board. Those are the only three bodies that can require results from all departments and stand watch to ensure they do their job.
I understand the principle you mentioned, but it doesn't work. That is why we are here today. It is not what you are saying that doesn't work; rather, history has shown us that it hasn't worked.
It is because it hasn't worked in the past that we want to give the act more teeth, as the Minister of Official Languages said.
Let me ask you, Mr. Newman, what tool can require ministers and the prime minister to achieve results?
Senior General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
Ms. Boyer or other colleagues at the table might have something to add, but I would like to clarify something.
You said that we are amending the old Official Languages Act, from 1988. We have to remember that one of the main objectives of that act was to stipulate the roles of the bodies responsible for its implementation, including Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage.
That said, at a practical level, the Council of Ministers is also accountable. Each minister is a member of cabinet. If there are problems or if questions are raised in the House, for instance, that will all be discussed in cabinet. Not everything has to be spelled out in an act since our parliamentary system is based on responsible government.
