Debates of April 18th, 1994

Petitions

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Do not table it!

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

It does not matter what the Standing Orders say. I think it is my democratic duty to present the views of my constituents.

[Jim Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which I am pleased to present and support.

It has to do with calling for a ban on the sale of killer cards, as they are referred to, collector cards in Canada. The cards, as most people know by now because there have been several other petitions presented, feature the killer and a description of the acts of the killer. I find it very repulsive but I think it is an attempt to glamorize this repulsiveness and idealize it in the minds of young people.

I am sure the killers, if they are in prison, must be flattered to think that somebody was interested in their endeavours. I do not know how in a civilized nation we can have this. It is an attempt to desensitize this thing. I am very much against it and I am pleading with the government to put in place legislation that would prevent the display, the sale or the exchange of killer cards in this country.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This concerns the last member who spoke. I have the following question for the Chair: regarding the point of order raised earlier when the petition was tabled, is the Chair prepared to examine the Standing Orders and, for the benefit of members who are new and not fully acquainted with the Standing Orders of this House, possibly take the time to look into this matter and tell us whether the hon. member who tabled the petition acted according to the

Standing Orders or not? I would appreciate the Chair's opinion. Perhaps the Chair could take this under advisement.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the case is closed, but since the hon. member put his case quite reasonably, I will give it some thought and get back to the House as soon as possible.

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Questions On The Order Paper

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House agree that all questions be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

I believe the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage has four minutes speaking time remaining.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, large numbers of parents have been enrolling their children in French immersion programs. Enrolment increased at a phenomenal rate over the past decade. Significant increases have also been seen in other French second language program schools outside Quebec and English second language programs in Quebec.

The most recent census shows that as a consequence of these programs the level of bilingualism in the 15 to 25-year group has risen from 16 per cent to 23 per cent in only 10 years.

The value of our official languages is also reflected in the desire of our English and French speaking minority communities to have access to quality public education in their language as a key to retaining their vitality. The Government of Canada has assisted and continues to assist in the development of the minority official language education system across Canada.

Canadian identity is a reflection of who we are. It must therefore accommodate native people, linguistic duality as well as the multicultural nature of our society and our regional diversity. It is important for Canada to reflect all its citizens. The notion of "belonging" applies not only to those who had the good fortune to be born in this land, but also to those for whom Canada is a country of adoption.

Our concept of citizenship must also include the values we share and those we would like to be associated with. Equality and respect for diversity form an integral part of our shared vision of Canada and the vital elements of our identity.

The public debate has often been so focused on what divides us that it often overlooks the things we have in common, including our grassroots civic commitments to building our communities. This active concept of citizenship encompasses not only a legal status but rather our active commitment to the fundamental values we share which give us pride in our citizenship.

How do we go about edifying a common vision of Canadian identity? In my mind, this cannot be done in isolation. Existing tensions can only be overcome if all Canadians have an adequate knowledge and understanding of the fundamental realities of their country and aspirations of the communities that make it up.

It is not by accident that language and culture are recurrent themes in Canadian society. No parliamentarian or government can afford to overlook these issues. They must be addressed openly, transparently. There are certainly adjustments to be made to the application of the official languages policy and there is still room for improvement, as the Commissioner of Official Languages pointed out last week.

Public debate should focus on these improvements. It should deal with hard facts, and not myths, misconceptions and exaggerations. The hon. member's motion is based on such misconceptions and exaggerations.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity to take part in this debate and to show the importance of our official languages policy for Canadian identity. And I have no doubt that, put before the facts, this House will reject the proposal before us today.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I was anxious to participate today as the minister with legislative responsibility for the Official Languages Act and to debate the motion to amend that act as moved by the hon. member opposite.

The Official Languages Act is no ordinary statute. It embodies protections that are enshrined in the supreme law of our land. It strikes a balance between high principle on the one hand and on the other, its pragmatic application. It belongs as the Federal Court of Appeal has said to that privileged category of quasi-constitutional legislation that reflects certain basic goals of our society. In short, the Official Languages Act reflects both the Constitution of the country and the social and political compromise out of which it arose.

We would do well to give due consideration in this debate to the fundamental nature of the statute, to the fact that Parliament has already devoted considerable attention to ensuring that it is modern, forward looking and adaptable and that it meets the changing needs of Canadians in a changing time. Amendments that could disturb the equilibrium achieved by the legislation between respect for constitutional principles and their reasonable interpretation, amendments which could be tested in the courts, should not be undertaken lightly.

The original Official Languages Act passed in 1969 was extensively targeted for reform and renewal during the mid 1980s, a process which resulted in Parliament adopting the new Official Languages Act in 1988.

Our party which, while in office, introduced the first Official Languages Act fully supported the 1988 reforms.

The aims of this reform were fourfold.

Firstly, to ensure that the provisions of the act were consistent with the language rights guaranteed in sections 16 to 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Secondly, to put in place a more flexible legislative framework for applying constitutional provisions in a fair, reasonable and practical manner with a view to developing policies and related programs.

As my hon. predecessor the then Minister of Justice asserted in this House upon moving the 1988 act for second reading, reform of the official languages policy had to be undertaken. Parliament had a duty to bring the provisions of the Official Languages Act of 1969 into line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As the present Minister of Justice and therefore in a sense as the legal custodian of the Official Languages Act, I believe it is incumbent upon me to review with hon. members of this House some of the guiding principles of the legislation to the extent that they relate to the motion before the House today.

The approach of the Official Languages Act is essentially one of institutional bilingualism. It is a functional approach. It requires government bodies to organize themselves so as to have the capacity to provide services in either official language to the extent necessary to serve the public or to allow public servants to work in the official language of their choice in accordance with the act.

The first three parts of the act flow directly from constitutional requirements which Parliament and the Canadian courts have upheld since Confederation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the aim of the legislation's provisions was to guarantee "equal access for francophones and anglophones to legislative bodies, the law and the courts".

I can therefore only welcome that portion of the opposition motion that would have the House resolve that the government should continue to facilitate the use of English or French in parliamentary and judicial proceedings as well as the use of both languages as the languages of federal legislation.

The Department of Justice has particular responsibilities in ensuring the drafting quality of legislative texts that must be equally authoritative in both official languages. It must ensure that representations made before federal courts on my behalf as Attorney General of Canada are done in the official language chosen by the non-governmental party.

Part IV of the Official Languages Act pertains to the constitutional right of Canadians to communicate with and receive services from federal institutions in the official language of their choice.

Section 20 of the charter clearly provides that any member of the public in Canada personally has the right to services in English or in French from any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or Government of Canada.

Section 20 also provides that the public has this right with respect to any other federal office where either there is a significant demand for communications and services from that office in that language, or if due to the nature of the office it is reasonable that communications and services are available in both languages.

Simply put, all of us as Canadians, indeed all members of the public in this country have the constitutional right to deal with their national government in the official language of their choice. This includes departmental headquarters and at those other offices across the country where it is reasonable due to the nature of the office or where a significant demand exists.

I emphasize this is not just a minority language right. Whether they are part of the English speaking majority outside of Quebec, the French speaking majority within Quebec, the French speaking communities outside Quebec, or the English speaking communities within Quebec, all Canadians have these entitlements. These basic rights are reflected in the corresponding institutional obligations set out in the Official Languages Act and the regulations on services to the public.

The new act and its regulations respecting services to the public take an office-by-office approach which is both consistent with the requirements of the Constitution and more flexible and effective, the aim being to ensure the provision of services in both languages where numbers warrant.

The motion to amend the Official Languages Act would limit the circumstances where federal services should be available to official language minorities in their own language to situations where there is a demonstrable local demand. The act's criteria and the regulations thereunder are already largely directed to meeting local needs, although the burden is not placed on minority members of the public to demonstrate demand.

A significant concentration of the minority language population in terms of numbers and proportion is sufficient in most circumstances to warrant the provision of federal services under the act in both languages. It avoids the administrative costs of actually having to measure demand at each office. This also helps to put to rest a longstanding difficulty in living up to the promise of the act. In the past demand from minority communities was often stifled because there were no bilingual services and there were no bilingual services because there was little manifested demand.

This brings me to comment on that portion of the opposition motion that would amend the act to reflect the philosophy of territorial bilingualism. If this notion of territorial bilingualism is meant to reflect the predominance of French in Quebec and English elsewhere, then I would respectfully reply that the act already reflects this predominance to an appropriate degree.

If however what is sought is territorial unilingualism whereby English and French are not only the predominant but the exclusive languages for all intents and purposes, I would have to say this would contravene not only the basic principles upon which the act was built but also the Canadian reality.

I have already said that with respect to federal services made available to members of the public, the principle of bilingual services was not absolute and that availability varied according to demographic and other factors. With respect to internal services made available to federal employees and the language in which public servants perform their job, under section 16 of the Charter, the two official languages are guaranteed equality of status "as to their use" in federal institutions. This great principle of equality is reflected in the duties and functions of federal institutions set out in Part V of the act.

In the National Capital Region and in certain designated regions, particularly in the Montreal area and in New Brunswick, federal institutions must ensure that their work environments are conducive to the use of both official languages.

Outside the prescribed regions the duty of federal institutions is essentially one of preserving fair practices as respects the minority language.

In conclusion, I respectfully submit that the Official Languages Act is a worthy and reliable instrument for the protection and the advancement of Canada's linguistic duality. Amendments that go to the principles of the legislation and which may impinge upon its constitutional underpinnings would serve no useful purpose and would likely deflect our energies from the real issues of the day.

The administration of the Official Languages Act is required by the legislation to be reviewed on a permanent and ongoing basis by a committee of Parliament. It is at that level we should be working to ensure that the implementation of the principles of the act is in accordance with the best practices.

I therefore encourage the House not to support this motion. I thank hon. members for their attention.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Justice would agree that the current Official Languages Act plus the Charter of Rights and Freedoms adequately protect the rights of all minority language groups in the country. If so, how is it that we have the situation still en route in Quebec in which Bill 22, Bill 101 and Bill 178 together combine to make for injustice, which the United Nations has ruled on, against the country and against the province of Quebec? We still have not solved this problem with the existing legislation.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in defence of the statute in its present form I referred to the compromise, social and political, out of which the statute arose. I think that in this country, with respect to this act as with so much else, what is required is a constant

monitoring of that compromise to ensure that it meets society's needs while still reflecting our underlying principles.

In dealing directly with the question I have been asked, I cannot speak for the legislatures of specific provinces which have seen things differently and seen fit to enact their own laws from time to time about language. I can say that as a national government and a confederation we defend this statute as reflecting principles of nationhood.

Yes, it is a compromise and yes, it is imperfect. At least to the present it is the best instrument that has been devised to reflect the linguistic duality of the country and the need which grows out of fairness to provide services where they are required in both languages to Canadians.

My response is perhaps not as direct as I would like to my hon. friend's question. I cannot speak for the legislature of Quebec or what may have motivated it from time to time in passing language laws of its own. I can simply say that from the federal perspective the Official Languages Act in its present form reflects the way this government sees the two languages in this country.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I was really trying to get at is perhaps an admission on the part of the federal government, represented by the hon. Minister of Justice, that Canada has in effect been derelict in its duty in the case of Gordon McIntyre whose case was presented to the U.N. The Government of Canada has not fulfilled its obligation in being critical of the laws of the province of Quebec in this regard vis-à-vis the United Nations ruling.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree. I think that the federal government has met whatever obligations it faces in that regard. Certainly the position of the federal government was communicated to the United Nations committee that considered the matter and I am sure our position was taken into account.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Whip of the Reform Party I wish to advise the House that pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), our speakers on this motion will be dividing their time.

As a preamble to my formal remarks I wish to recognize that whenever we want to introduce change, whether it is legislative, whether it is organizational change, whatever it might be, there needs to be first of all the acceptance of the recognition that something needs to be changed. There needs to be some ownership and some admission that everything is not as perhaps it ought to be.

My purpose this afternoon is to show that the federal language policy has failed in its primary objective which was and is to unify Canada. I submit it is doing the very opposite.

How does it do this? I will approach the answer from two perspectives. First, the federal language policy is unjust. Second, it is impossible or almost impossible to implement the provisions of the language policy.

On what grounds to I believe that the federal language policy is unjust? Justice is a word we use to describe doing what is right and fair. It describes the interaction of rights and obligations. A right is the legitimate expectation that one will be treated in a certain manner by other persons and institutions. An obligation is the duty of an individual or institution to treat another individual or institution in the expected manner.

Canada's language policy has not been guided by such a concept of justice. Instead it is the result of the strong dominating the weak, depending on where one lives in Canada. The concept that justice is nothing more than the personal interest of the powerful was successfully refuted many years ago by Plato.

It was Prime Ministers Pearson and Trudeau who had the great idea of bringing Canada long needed justice. Trudeau spoke often and eloquently about the just society. Simultaneously, with bringing about a just society these two Prime Ministers wanted to bring about national unity. They chose language policy as the vehicle to achieve it.

From the beginning, however, whenever the principle of justice clashed with the principle of unity justice was sacrificed. Thus the federal government took a contradictory stand. It subsidized French-speaking minorities outside Quebec and English-speaking minorities in Quebec. At the same time it was trapped into silently aiding an enforced French only unilingualism in Quebec.

Such a self-contradictory stand is unjust and in the long run destructive to national unity. Thus the federal government's policy has become inconsistent, confused and generally counterproductive.

Add to the injustice of this policy the perpetuation of ignorance among Canadians about the federal policy and we have the consequences of ignorance. When people are kept in ignorance about government policies that affect them there is great potential for breeding suspicion, resentment, prejudice and ultimately hatred.

Some of these attitudes are beginning to surface. If we want to unite Canada, we must have a language policy that is just and we must tell Canadians what it is.

Even the bilingual and bicultural commission understood justice in terms of the rights for the language minorities. It wanted a policy that was essentially utilitarian, the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It rejected the notion that every Canadian had the duty to become bilingual. The B and B commission report states a bilingual country is not one where all inhabitants necessarily have to speak two languages. Rather,

it is a country where the principal public and private institutions must provide services in two languages to citizens, the vast majority of whom may very well be unilingual.

In contrast to that fair and just position, federal language policy is now more in line with asymmetrical bilingualism. In practical terms, every day operational terms, that means protect French everywhere in Canada, especially in communities where there are few francophones, but do not extend the same rights to the English in Quebec.

This policy results in contradictory explanations of the federal language policy. In Quebec the policy is explained asymmetrically. In the rest of Canada it is explained from a utilitarian perspective.

The most disturbing aspect of all of this is that there is no single comprehensive vision of Canada and its linguistic identity. To achieve that requires a just language policy. Let us remember that only with a government that is just will we have a stable country.

I move to my second aspect of the federal language policy. I submit that the present language policy is difficult if not impossible to implement.

I wish to direct my attention particularly and the attention of this House to the third goal found in the 1988 Official Languages Act. The goals are that the proportion of French speakers and English speakers in the public service reflects Canada's linguistic make-up. This proportionate level of representation is to be achieved in the overall composition of the public service and at all levels of seniority and all fields of operation without infringing on the merit principle, hiring and promotion.

The hon. Minister of Justice talked a few minutes ago about the pragmatic application of that particular act. I suggest that in order for us to meet that goal it is impossible to hire on the basis of merit alone and that in some cases people will be hired on the basis of language alone.

Most recently the hon. Minister of National Defence on February 25, 1994 gave an even better illustration of how difficult it is to administer this act: "I want to tell the member that by 1997 anybody aspiring to the lieutenant-colonel rank of the military will have to be bilingual. That means we are putting on notice anglophones who want to be generals or chiefs of staff that they have to be totally and absolutely bilingual".

There are two problems. First, are anglophones the only ones who are being put on notice or are francophones being put on notice as well, or is this another example of asymmetrical bilingualism?

Second, can anyone ever claim to be perfectly bilingual?

After all is said and done regarding these things, the real issue for me is that I want Canada to be united, a country in which we can work together and respect one another in either of the two official languages without forcing each other to become individually bilingual.

Our country is bigger than any one of us individually. It is bigger than any one province or territory. It is only as we preserve justice for all that we will have a stable country. If we become greedy for power, for the power of self-serving, for special treatment, in this case because of language, we will tear this country apart.

Let us create a just language policy. Such a policy will combine common sense with reality. It will be affordable and make Canada an example of what a country can and should be.

That is the purpose of this motion. That is what we are debating. We hope the House will see it that way as well.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member of the Reform Party.

I have a short preamble to my question. If one were taking a drive through the province of Quebec right now and turned on the radio it would not matter what station, one could hear Anne Murray, Gordon Lightfoot, not just francophone recording artists, Canadian anglophone recording artists.

When driving outside Quebec, in any other part of Canada where there are another 1,400 or 1,500 radio stations, one cannot hear francophone recording artists.

Because these are Canadian airwaves, not French or English airwaves, does the member not think that as a measure of fairness it would be a good idea to have Canadian recording artists heard on all radio stations in Canada?

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is yes, of course. The answer also is one can hear French recording artists in Kelowna, Vernon and Armstrong. These are little cities in British Columbia. One can hear them in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

I would encourage the hon. member to drive through those provinces and to tune in to those radio stations because this does occur.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member give his speech. He said that the present law was unjust because in part it was asymmetrical with respect to the anglophones in Quebec. He said that the provisions of the federal Official Languages Act did not protect the anglophones of Quebec as they did the francophones outside Quebec.

I am an anglophone from Quebec. I know of no provision that applies in a lesser way to the anglophones of Quebec than it does with the francophones outside Quebec. I was surprised to hear him say that.

Our problem in Quebec as anglophones has not been with the federal law. The federal law has protected our rights and enhanced those rights. Our problems have been with Quebec Bill 101, Bill 178, Bill 22 and others, not with the federal law.

I would like him to tell the House where the federal law provides lesser rights to the anglophones in Quebec than to the francophones outside Quebec. I doubt that he can provide the House with that information.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the point clearly is the difficulty with Bill 101.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

That is not a federal law.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

That is correct. The fact of the matter is that the infringement on the constitutional rights of Canadians by the provincial law is not being enforced by the Canadian government. That is where the problem lies.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the members if they would accept reciprocity, that is, Quebec anglophones would be treated exactly as francophones throughout Canada. Use the rights of anglophones in Quebec as a basis. I am sure that if francophones outside Quebec received 25 per cent of what Quebec's anglophone minority gets, they would be very happy.

Would the ideal not be to have a kind of reciprocity? That is what I ask the hon. member, with respect for his opinion. Any right taken from Quebec's anglophones would be taken from francophones, but any right given to Quebec's anglophones would be given to francophones in the rest of Canada as well. Would he agree to that?

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that question is not answered easily. It takes time. It is a difficult question and a good question.

Reciprocity assumes that equality applies and that this is done logically. The point remains that the Court of Appeal in Ontario indicated that where numbers warrant, 12 people would constitute such a group. The Court of Appeal also said the only way the French language rights could be preserved in the educational system was by having separate French school boards.

If reciprocity means that in every community even where there might be five or ten people there would be a school board, we would end up with a proliferation of school boards which would add tremendous costs. This is only one example. There are many others. There are trustees to be paid, superintendents to be paid, other administrative and professional staff, support and so on.

Therefore reciprocity is not an easy question to address directly. In principle I would agree.