LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 7, 1999

• 1539

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): Order please! The committee is now in session.

Members have before them a copy of the agenda, but before we move on it, I'd like to ask those present if they would agree to the Chair recognizing Senator Gauthier on a point of order, because he won't be able to stay. After that, I'd like to recognize Mr. Mauril Bélanger and then, move the adoption of the financial report.

Do I have the consent of members?

An Hon. Member: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. Go ahead, Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, but because I'm hard of hearing, I usually have an interpreter or a stenotypist with me. This allows me to follow the discussion. However, this person cancelled on me today, which is truly an inconvenience for me because I really wanted to take an active part in this meeting. I won't be able to do that, but I would nevertheless like to say something important before the discussion gets underway.

• 1540

Madam Chair, today's witnesses are officials who will be discussing sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act. In some respects, this legislation is currently before the courts, because sections 41 and 42 are being challenged in Federal Court by the Commissioner of Official Languages, on the one hand, and by the Association des juristes d'expression française d'Ontario, on the other hand. The court is being asked to rule on whether these provisions are in fact binding clauses or merely declaratory, or statements of intent.

In response to a letter written to her last October, the Minister of Justice informed me that as Attorney General of Canada, it was her opinion that Part VII of the Official Languages Act was declaratory, rather than binding, as she argued succinctly before the courts.

Madam Chair, along with several other persons here present, including Mr. Plamondon, I worked on getting the Official Languages Act passed in 1988. The joint committee examined the legislation and made known its opinions. In the opinion of the minister, ff the current government interprets sections 41 and 42 as being mere statements of intent, this is merely a policy decision, not a bureaucratic one.

This begs the following question: why are we discussing sections 41 and 42 with officials, when this matter is before the courts? In a letter sent to me on October 13 last, the minister confirmed that the government had taken this matter to the courts and was not at liberty to comment.

I'd like an answer or an opinion as to whether the proceedings of this committee are in order or not, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): The minister is on our witness list. She is scheduled to appear in February, as is the minister responsible for the Treasury Board and, if my memory serves me correctly, one other minister. Aren't we scheduled to hear from two ministers in February?

Nevertheless, I agree with you.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Chair, I can even quote an excerpt from her letter and leave it with you, if you like.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier:

Moreover, the matter which you have raised is now before the courts and I'm involved in my capacity of Attorney General of Canada. Therefore, you can understand that I am not liberty to comment on this until such time as the court rules..

Madam Chair, I'm prepared to table this letter to the committee, if you like.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): As I said, the Justice Minister is scheduled to make an appearance later.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Senator Gauthier has raised an interesting point, one that warrants further consideration.

With your permission, Madame Chair, and if my colleagues have no objections, I'd like to bring up a matter which is not on our agenda, but which, in my opinion, is very important. I'm referring to the current events unfolding in Ontario. I'd like to take a minute to talk about this a little, if I might.

Some time ago, the Government of Ontario announced plans to go ahead and merge a number of municipalities in various regions throughout the province. In Ottawa-Carleton, the provincial government appointed Glenn Shortliffe last fall to review the situation and report back with recommendations within ninety days. These recommendations have now been tabled. Mr. Shortliffe has recommended among other things that 11 existing municipalities along with the regional government be merged into the new City of Ottawa. He also recommended that the new City of Ottawa be officially bilingual, that it have two official languages, French and English, and that this feature be formally recognized in the new municipal legislation.

Yesterday, the Government of Ontario tabled a bill in the Ontario Legislative Assembly which thumbed its nose at this recommendation, a fact which I personally find deplorable.

• 1545

If my committee colleagues have no objections, I would like to move a resolution on this matter. With your permission, I will read you the text of my resolution.

An Hon. Member: By all means.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Are there any objections to the member from...

An Hon. Member: No.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Go ahead then.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Chair, my resolution reads as follows:

Be it resolved that in the opinion of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, the Ontario Legislative Assembly establish, by way of legislation, that the City of Ottawa, as Canada's capital, has two official languages, English and French.

The French version reads as follows:

[English]

Be it resolved that in the opinion of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, the Ontario Legislative Assembly establish, by way of legislation, that the City of Ottawa, as Canada's capital, have two official languages, English and French.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Bellemare seconds Mr. Bélanger's motion. I'm certain members have questions. Then we'll decide where to go from here.

Senator Rivest.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): I have question about the substance of the resolution, Madame Chair. May I?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): By all means.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Of course, I fully agree with the resolution tabled by our colleague.

I don't wish to move a formal amendment, but this is an extremely important matter for Canada and for this nation's linguistic duality. I would like us to ask the Canadian government to take charge of this matter and show some leadership because as I see it, this is an important matter.

This parliamentary committee can pass our colleague's resolution, but I don't see how this committee can ask the Government of Canada to advise the Government of Ontario directly of its desire and determination to have the City of Ottawa, the nation's capital, declared a bilingual city.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Chair, when questioned about this matter upon exiting the House, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dion replied that as far as the Government of Canada was concerned, the nation's capital should be bilingual and that he intended to contact the Ontario government, on behalf of the federal government, regarding this matter.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: A national crisis needs to erupt before I can agree with Mr. Dion.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): If there are no objections, I'm going to proceed a little differently than usual because I want to give everyone a chance to speak to this issue. I have requests from Mr. Hill, Mr. Bellemare and Mr. Godin.

Mr. Hill.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

One of the things I've heard regularly since I came to Ottawa is that there is no place for the federal government to intrude in provincial jurisdiction. Ottawa is not a federal jurisdiction; Ottawa is a provincial jurisdiction. Any intrusion of that kind, I think, would be very poorly received by my Bloc colleagues, who have constantly talked about this as being an important issue. This is an issue for local government to decide, and I would vigorously object to the federal government intruding in this domain.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): I totally disagree with Mr. Hill. May I remind him that we're not talking about just any city. I admit that in theory, cities are part of provinces and municipalities are created by provinces. However, we're not talking about your average, run-of-the-mill city here. We're talking about Canada's capital. And Canada's capital should be a reflection of all of Canada and its people.

The fact is that Canada has two official languages and it would be totally unacceptable if the country's capital city assumed no responsibility whatsoever with respect to bilingualism, in other words if it did not take steps to provide services to both English- speaking and French-speaking residents in the language of their choice or give residents the opportunity to work in their preferred language. This is a very important consideration. This isn't just any city. It's the nation's capital, a reflection of the entire country. This isn't a question of interfering in provincial matters. We're not trying to force anything on the province. All we're asking is for it to give this matter some thought and to consider our recommendation that Canada's capital be designated bilingual. Thank you.

• 1550

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): First of all, I have to say that I disagree with my Reform Party colleague. This is merely another indication of Reform's feelings toward bilingualism and Canada's francophone population.

Having said this, I think we need to go even further. If Ontario isn't prepared to designate Canada's capital as bilingual and to respect the country's two official languages, perhaps we could suggest to it that the capital city be moved to another province, one that is willing to respect the nation's linguistic duality. Canada has two founding peoples and its capital city must fully reflect this historical fact. Ontario's premier must respect Canada's two founding peoples, considering his good fortune in having Ontario as home to the nation's capital. Canadians wouldn't take too kindly to Ottawa becoming a unilingual English capital city. I would oppose such a move with every fibre of my being.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you very much. Senator Robichaud.

Senator Louis-J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.): Every person who holds the country's Official Languages Act in high esteem was surely insulted on reading in this morning's newspapers that the nation's capital might not be designated a bilingual municipality. That this could happen is hard to fathom.

[English]

I'm in full agreement with Mr. Hill to the effect that the municipalities are creatures of the provinces throughout the country, but Ottawa is entirely different because it's the national capital. It was said before, so I don't want to repeat what has been said eloquently. But Ottawa is so different from Toronto. It's so different from Moncton. It's so different from Quebec City. It's the national capital. The nation is officially bilingual, so the national capital has to be officially bilingual. How could Queen's Park ignore that fact? How the minister, whose name is Tony Clement, and his cabinet can ignore that fact I cannot understand.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Senator Robichaud.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I simply have a comment. A number of countries in the world have two, and sometimes more, official languages. All of these countries, without exception, have a policy on the books respecting the use of two official languages within the country's capital region..

Brussels is one such city and I could give you other examples. The Francophonie has 47 member countries. It's not up to us to settle the issue brought to light by my friend, MP Mauril Bélanger. The issue has already been settled. In 1959, the Diefenbaker government decreed that Ottawa was the nation's capital, the seat of government and Parliament. It further decreed that the National Capital Region encompassed part of Quebec and part of Ontario and that the government recognized both official languages in the National Capital Region. The municipalities followed the government's lead. Why would Ontario consider shattering 30 years of social and linguistic harmony in the National Capital Region and in our nation's capital by declaring Ottawa to be henceforth a unilingual English city?

• 1555

Madam Chair, the logic of this decision escapes me.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you.

Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): As far as this resolution is concerned, Madam Chair, clearly the provinces have jurisdiction over municipal affairs. However, as others before me have pointed out, we're dealing with a rather exceptional situation here. I'm wondering if the federal government couldn't perhaps invoke section 91 of the Constitution, as it could have done on certain other occasions in the past. This provision refers to peace and order and to the need to preserve certain rights. Perhaps the federal government could invoke section 91 to force the province of Ontario to uphold the Constitution.

However, I prefer to see the federal government opt for an approach based on negotiations and discussions with Ontario. I also encourage Francophone special interest groups in Ontario and in particular those based in the nation's capital to lobby the Ontario government.

There's something else we need to consider. Given that the boundaries of the National Capital Region are clearly defined and given that the Ontario government is deciding to change these boundaries, could it be argued then that the Government of Ontario is attempting in the process to amend the Canadian Constitution?

Therefore, as I see it, the federal government has some strong arguments on its side, or at the very least, some points in its favour when the time comes to hold negotiations with the province of Ontario. The federal government has a number of valid arguments it can raise. Not only can it look to some of the suggestions that have been made, it can also point to a number of existing precedents in the course of its discussions with the province.

I can appreciate the battle that will be waged. It's similar to the one waged over the Montfort hospital, although there are some special considerations. If ever the government were to decide to invoke section 91, it would be because the circumstances were unique, because the nation's capital is involved. I don't believe the federal government should intervene otherwise in municipal affairs, which come under provincial jurisdiction. This case, however, is rather unique.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Before I go back to Mr. Bélanger for some closing comments, are there any other comments?

Mr. Bélanger, could you repeat the text of your resolution, to be certain that we have a clear idea of what the committee is requesting?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I've written it down, but few people can decipher my handwriting. Therefore, I'll read it aloud again:

[English]

Be it resolved that, in the opinion of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, the Ontario Legislative Assembly should determine by way of legislation that the City of Ottawa, as Canada's capital, have two official languages, English and French.

[Translation]

Be it resolved that in the opinion of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, the Ontario Legislative Assembly establish, by way of legislation, that the City of Ottawa, as Canada's capital, have two official languages, English and French.

[English]

If I may, Dr. Hill, I too am very sensitive to jurisdictions. I'm one of those creatures who does believe we have a constitutional arrangement that does provide for orders of government, and that each order of government in its jurisdictions is sovereign. But I know—I'm not sure it's the only one—that the city of Ottawa is referred to in our Constitution as being Canada's capital. It is established by way of the Constitution. Inasmuch as I may be sensitive to jurisdiction, there is a national and international aspect to one's capital as it is stipulated in the Constitution of Canada.

• 1600

In my opinion, since the official languages policy of the land has been constitutionalized—a process that was supported by the Government of Ontario—it flows that its capital should also be bilingual. That is why I put this motion forward. Inasmuch as I'm respectful, you may see that I've not extended it beyond Ottawa. I'm restricting this to the city of Ottawa, which is what the Constitution of Canada now says.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon, I've taken note of your suggestions and arguments. I'd already thought of a few of them. This is a battle that must be waged. There's no way around it.

I want to thank the committee for agreeing to debate this resolution. I hope it will be unanimously endorsed.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Senator Robichaud.

[English]

Senator Louis J. Robichaud: You've mentioned the joint committee in the resolution, but it's not a joint committee of the board of trade of the City of Hull. It's the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages of the Government of Canada. It's not of Vanier or of the board of trade. What's a joint committee?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The Standing Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I too hope that unanimity will prevail. Mr. Bélanger, are you asking that the committee today adopt a resolution in principle, namely that be it resolved that in the opinion of the committee...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Absolutely.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): What then?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If the resolution is passed, we could issue a release on behalf of the committee and its membership.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Fine. Shall we vote on the resolution then?

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Chair, I don't think the committee really needs to endorse Mr. Bélanger's motion, but if necessary, I would be happy to second it.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I have a comment. The courts have just ruled that the Government of Ontario must save an institution like the Montfort in the name of linguistic duality. The Montfort is an important institution, but nevertheless, it's only an institution. If we were forced to go to court on an issue as important as this, what do you thing Canada's courts will decide, given that we're talking about the nation's capital? Ontario's current position on this issue makes no sense whatsoever.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugene Bellemare: You're saying this is nothing more than pious wishes on the committee's part. I think we should go even further. Not only should we issue a press release, but I think we should also forward this resolution to the office of the Prime Minister of Canada and to the office of the Premier of Ontario.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I agree.

Senator Louis Robichaud: With a copy to the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: We could table a resolution in the House of Commons and Senate.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Absolutely.

A member: A formal resolution.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Yes, along with the report.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Is it necessary for the committee to adopt two resolutions or can we cover everything in a single one? First of all, is everyone agreed on a resolution in principle?

An Hon. Member: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Secondly, we have Mr. Bellemare's motion calling for the committee to forward the resolution to the offices of the Prime Minister of Canada and Premier of Ontario, and to report to both houses.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And to the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. Let's turn our attention now to today's agenda.

[English]

I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: We would have to have a vote, I believe.

(Motion agreed to: yeas, 7; nays, 1)

Mr. Grant Hill: Could we please have copies of that motion in writing so that a person could refer to them?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes. Members of the committee will receive copies of the motion and copies also of the letters we will be sending in the report.

[Translation]

In accordance with our mandate under Standing Order 108 (4) b), we now resume our study on the application of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

We welcome today from the Treasury Board Secretariat...

• 1605

Mr. Louis Plamondon: On a point of order, Madame Chair. We haven't settled the matter raised by Mr. Gauthier, namely the appropriateness of senior Treasury Board officials testifying before this committee at this time. Mr. Gauthier advised us that there was a case pending before the courts, that the minister had written a letter putting her in a rather difficult position and that this letter would be tabled to the committee.

I'd like us discuss this before we hear from the witnesses.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you for reminding me. There was also the matter of the financial report to settle.

Kindly bear with us, Mr. Guénette and Ms. Cloutier.

Resuming debate on the matter raised by Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's not a resolution as such.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): No?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, but I'd just like to say that our advisers, the clerks and our counsel should be able to tell you, Madame Chair, whether the committee is acting within its authority in questioning officials about a policy matter. The Minister of Justice herself admitted that this was a policy matter, not a bureaucratic one.

First of all, if it is indeed government policy to view the legislation as declaratory in nature, rather than binding, why should we, the politicians who drafted the legislation in 1988 and who were firmly convinced that its provisions were binding, and not merely statements of intent, continue to delude ourselves?

It's important for me to know, Madam Chair, if this committee is in fact authorized to discuss administrative matters only, or whether it can also discuss policy issues. Your response was that the minister was scheduled to appear in February. You're talking about the Justice Minister. The witnesses here today are from Treasury Board. It's all the same government.

I'd like to know what we can possibly discuss without getting around to the matter now before the courts. For your information, the case involves federal fines issued by federal officers, police officers or others, for violations of the law on federal land, for example, a parking ticket in an airport parking lot. Parliament has enacted legislation whereby the administration of these fines is a provincial matter. The provinces have downloaded this responsibility on to municipalities. As you may recall, a number of municipalities in Ontario have declared themselves unilingual English.

I don't want to expand on this too much, because I could go on for a full 20 minutes. If, in downloading its responsibilities to municipalities, the province of Ontario has not insisted that these municipalities comply with Canada's Official Languages Act, then a person charged with violating a federal law at Toronto's Pearson Airport will not be able to address a court in Ontario in French, because the municipality of Mississauga refuses to recognize linguistic rights.

This is an unbelievable situation. We are talking about Ottawa, the nation's capital, which has an airport. If the nation's capital is declared unilingual English, the justice system, responsibility for which has been shifted by the province to municipalities, will be administered in English only. That is unacceptable, Madam Chair.

• 1610

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Senator. For your information, today's witnesses are not here to discuss policy issues, or to debate whether certain legislative provisions are binding or not. They are here to discuss administrative matters with us. I fully agree that we need to hear from the ministers on policy matters.

Mr. Plamondon, followed by Mr. Godin.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: In light of what Mr. Gauthier has just said, I move that the committee adjourn its proceedings until the minister's scheduled appearance, at which time she will address policy questions. However, we should allow the witnesses to table their submissions, which I read in part earlier. I had prepared about 10 questions for them, but I fully agree with what Senator Gauthier has just said. Given the situation, we cannot proceed at this time. I move that the committee adjourn until February, until the minister's scheduled appearance.

In the meantime, however, I'd like our advisers to thoroughly consider the matter raised by Senator Gauthier so that we know if in fact we can hear from other officials at other times.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): You are proposing a motion, but I had already given Mr. Godin leave to speak. Do you support this motion? Do members of the committee agree to let the witnesses table their documents? This might be for the next time. Our message today is that we want the minister responsible to appear before us.

I move the question on the tabling of documents.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you. You all have seen the financial report. Senator Louis Robichaud moves that, in accordance with Standing Order 104, the Joint Chair (Senate) be authorized to report expenditures incurred during the previous session.

Are there any questions about the financial report? No?

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Bélanger.

An Hon. Member: We have the document from...

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes, everyone has a copy of it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Chair, must the committee report to the House and to the Senate on the resolution passed earlier?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): The resolution passed earlier will be part of our report.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Will that be tabled tomorrow or Thursday?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes, I believe so.

Senator Rivest has moved that the committee adjourn. Is everyone agreed?

The meeting is therefore adjourned.