LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 13, 2000

• 1537

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)): Gentlemen, welcome to this 15th meeting of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(4), we continue our consideration of official languages policies and programs. Speaker Parent, I'd like to...

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Chair...

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Yes, Mr. Godin?

Mr. Yvon Godin: As I stated earlier, I do not intend to stay for very long, because I must attend a meeting of the Natural Resources Committee which began earlier this morning.

I would like to rise on a question of privilege.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Go ahead.

Mr. Yvon Godin: My apologies to the Speaker and to the Clerk.

On March 23, I sent a letter to Dyan Adam, the Commissioner of Official Languages, to which I have now received a response. I would like to read her response to you and I ask that the letter be translated and subsequently distributed to committee members, because I am not entirely satisfied with the response I received.

At a meeting of the Human Resources Development Committee, the Reform Party requested a document which was not tabled because it hadn't been translated into French. I objected and brought the matter to this committee's attention. I even mentioned it to the Commissioner of Official Languages when she appeared before the committee.

I've now received an answer to my letter and I have to say that I am not at all satisfied. I have even written back to her to convey my dissatisfaction. I would like to read for the record the Commissioner's response.

I am writing in response to the complaint you filed on March 23 last concerning the reports on audits conducted at Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) in 1991 and 1994 which were unavailable in French.

“Large Contributions Audit, National Report” was published at the time by the Department of Employment and Immigration. HRDC contends that this report was probably translated into French in accordance with the requirements of the Official Languages Act, but, for administrative reasons, is no longer available today. The 1994 report, which was a follow-up to the 1991 report, was a draft which was never completed as a result of a departmental reorganization. Accordingly, this document was not distributed.

The Department also informed us that, in response to the request by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, the two documents were translated as quickly as possible, given the time constraints imposed by this kind of exercise, and distributed to the Committee on March 17 last.

• 1540

We are satisfied with HRDC's explanations and corrective measures and are closing our investigation.

Madam Chair, this response is totally unsatisfactory and I would like the committee to look into this matter. That's why I'm placing this on our agenda. I'm forwarding the letter to the clerk so that she can arrange to have it translated and circulated to committee members. It's unacceptable that a report requested two weeks prior to a scheduled meeting is unavailable, ostensibly because there wasn't enough time to get it translated and that this was the reason given for the delay.

As I said at the time, Francophones always seem to be the ones who are blamed if documents are unavailable. Translation always seems to be singled out as the cause of the problem. Rarely does a document need to be translated into English. Most times, Francophones end up taking the blame.

I replied to her letter as follows:

I have read your reply to my letter of March 23 last concerning Human Resources Development documents which were submitted to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, but had not been translated into French.

I was very much surprised and disappointed by your explanation. I find it hard to accept the idea that federal documents might no longer be available, even for administrative reasons.

As regards the 1994 report, which was a follow-up to the 1991 document, I do not understand how a draft document could be submitted to the public, or why a document, or rather a draft, was made public in English only. Nor do I grasp the reasons for this initiative, particularly since the department in question subsequently decided not to complete it.

I can understand the time constraints placed on translation of the documents, although the department had more than two weeks before it had to distribute the documents to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. In my opinion, that time period was long enough. The House of Commons, for example, produces Hansard, the daily record of everything said in the House of Commons, and this document is available in both languages on the same day. I find it hard to accept your explanation of the situation as valid.

Under the Official Languages Act, every document submitted to the parliamentary committees must be in both languages. Unfortunately, the English document could not be tabled because there was no French version of it. You must understand, Ms. Adam, that we Francophone members sitting at the table were placed in a difficult position since these documents had to be translated. The Anglophone members were penalized as well by being unable to gain access to the documents since they had to wait for the French version for their Francophone colleagues. I believe it is unfair that Francophones should be the victims of this kind of negligence.

I would have liked to receive an answer from you on this question. In my opinion, these explanations are not valid and I note once again that the rights of Francophones have been flouted.

I'd like to table this document with the committee.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Here's what I'm suggesting you do, Mr. Godin. If you give the clerk a copy of the letter, we will arrange to have it translated into English and both the original version and the translation will then be distributed to all committee members.

Secondly, I propose that the sub-committee on agenda and procedure take a closer look at this matter and that I write a letter to the Commissioner of Official Languages on behalf of the committee.

Would that be alright with you?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): First of all, the committee needs to agree or disagree with Ms. Adam's response to the letter.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I did say that the sub- committee on agenda and procedure would meet before a letter was drafted.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: After the sub-committee meeting, the full committee will need to meet either to adopt a resolution or draft a letter.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): If that's what committee members want, then I don't see any problem.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I can relate to you hundreds of cases similar to this one. The meetings will be long ones. This happens throughout the year. It's nothing new. I've been a member for 16 years and it's always been like this.

The Joint Chair: I'd like us to wrap this up. We have invited two witnesses and, as a courtesy to them, we shouldn't keep them waiting too long. I've suggested a possible course of action.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: We'll take care of the letter.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Godin is willing to go along with my suggestion. Of course, you realize that the sub- committee on agenda and procedure won't be able to meet until the fall, Mr. Godin. However, it will deal with the matter then and report back to the full committee with a copy of a letter for the Commissioner.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Madam Chair, I'm satisfied with that. I don't have a problem with the Bloc Québécois bringing hundreds of similar cases to our attention. I can tell you about one particular incident...

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): The Bloc Québécois aren't alone is encountering cases like this, Mr. Godin. The Liberals have had their share of incidents as well.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I wasn't my intention to take up the witnesses time, but undoubtedly the Speaker of the House can understand the problem we face here in committee. He's familiar with the problem. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Godin. I simply want to say that the problems francophones encounter in Canada is not restricted to only one political party, but to all parties represented in the House and indeed even the Senate.

• 1545

I apologize, Mr. Parent and Mr. Marleau, for the wait. Welcome to our meeting, the purpose of which is to review with you the application by the House of Commons of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Before I turn the floor over to Speaker Parent, I would like to pass along a bit of information to committee members. I don't know if the letter I'm about to quote has been distributed to committee members.

A voice: Yes, it has.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): The letter is dated September 16, 1999.

Senator Joan Thorne Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): On a point of order, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Yes, Senator Fraser?

Senator Joan Fraser: I think we've only received the French version. Is there an official translation available?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I have the French version, but as for the English one, I don't think I have it. I'm sorry, but the English version is on the reverse side...

Senator Joan Fraser: No, no. There's...

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Go on, Senator Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser: Now I see.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): You've found it then.

Senator Joan Fraser: Yes, I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Fine then.

Members have a copy of the letter as well as of the letter of understanding in both languages. Please let me know if you haven't received them.

I won't bother reading the letter in its entirety, since you all have copies. Let me simply point out that this is a letter of understanding between the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Speaker of the House of Commons concerning compliance with Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

We will be asking Speaker Parent to explain to us today the administrative structure in place at the House of Commons. I understand that you don't wish to make an opening statement to the committee, Speaker Parent.

The Hon. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons, Lib.): That's correct.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Fine. Neither Mr. Parent nor Mr. Marleau will be making opening statements, which means that we can move immediately to questions. Please note that Speaker Parent can only stay until 4:30 p.m. If there are any questions remaining after 4:30 p.m., Mr. Marleau will be able to stay a few minutes longer.

Before I turn the floor over to Mr. Hill, I would just like to remind you that during the second half of this meeting, we will be reviewing the interim report that I presented to you last week. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Hill.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

Thank you both for being here. This problem that was just brought up by Mr. Godin seems to me to be a problem that normally would be dealt with by the House, and not dealt with by the committee here. So I'd like to have your guidance on whether you feel this should have been addressed to the language commissioner or whether it should have been addressed to the House for House internal working.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Well, as you know, we try to keep two things separate. One is the administration of the House, which we're in charge of. The second is the House and the committees themselves.

Generally speaking, the House of Commons does not submit itself to any commissions or any “outside force”. The House reserves unto itself the right to make its own rules and its own interpretations, if you will. Just on the surface of it, from what was said here, it seems you wanted a report, which was in English, and he wanted it done in French. It would seem to me if this were in the committee, the committee should have dealt with this itself. If it had been a matter for the House, the House would have dealt with it itself.

He went to the Commissioner of Official Languages to have this resolved. I guess that's the way he thought it should go. But in my view, a committee is master of its own house, and if it deals with the work of a committee, then I am quite prepared to let the committee do the work it's supposed to be doing.

Does that answer your question?

Mr. Grant Hill: Indeed. Let's take it one step further, though. This committee is charged with looking at the implementation of the Official Languages Act. Do you see this committee as having any role whatsoever in looking at complaints relating to other committees regarding the Official Languages Act?

• 1550

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: This committee has a role, for example, in the administration of the House, if they want to look at the administrative side. If there's no satisfaction from a member who wants a complaint registered with the House of Commons in the administrative part and it doesn't go there, it could come to this committee. But by and large, the committees of the House should deal with these complaints themselves.

May I quote you some figures we have received about the number and the types of complaints?

Mr. Grant Hill: That was my next question.

[Translation]

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Since he put his questions to me in English, I will answer him in English, if there are no objections.

[English]

On the administrative side, we have had seventeen complaints to the House in...is it this session?

A voice: This Parliament.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: This Parliament. That's three years. We have had 17. One of them was about a training session that was unilingual, one was about unilingual signs, four were for services that were not available in French, two were for unilingual menus and receipts at a restaurant, two were for unilingual versions of the debates, one was about the composition of the House administration staff, one was for a unilingual message on voice mail that was received when you called up, one was about poor quality of French text on the parliamentary Internet, one was regarding an interview not done in the language of the candidate's choice, two were for English signage different from French signage, and one was about the information on the handling of complaints. Those total seventeen on the administrative side.

On the committee side, a total of two came through us. One was that no representative from the French-speaking community was invited to public hearings. The other one was about a motion adopted to restrict MPs from introducing motions in the official language of their choice. Those are the complaints we had.

You might be interested to know how long it took to get an answer on the administrative side. On one of these complaints it took ten days or less, on seven of the complaints it took thirty days or less, on two of the complaints it took sixty days or less, and on one of the complaints it took ninety days or less. So we try to get the work done in anywhere from sixty to ninety days to get an answer. Four of them took 91 days or more, and I'm not proud of that at all, but that's the way it is. You should have that information. And two are unresolved because they deal with CPAC, which is an adjunct to the administrative part.

As for the two complaints from the committee, one of them took ten days or less and the other took 91 days or more. Those are the only two we had on committee.

Madam Chairman, I'm prepared to deposit this, if you want, for your information.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Parent. We have a copy in French and we have a copy in English, so we'll have photocopies made and distributed. Oh, we have all the copies already? So we will distribute all the copies of what you've just explained to us,

[Translation]

the document Official Languages Complaints 1997-2000,

[English]

in French and in English, to the members present. Thank you.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: Finally, has there been any conflict between the House and the committees particularly in relationship to the Commissioner of Official Languages?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: You mean this committee and the House?

Mr. Grant Hill: No, I mean the Commissioner of Official Languages. The memorandum of understanding we have here is designed to lay out a formal process. Has there been any conflict relating to this at all?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: No, we've been able to work it through quite well.

Mr. Grant Hill: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I'll be brief. My question concerns the letter of understanding. I'm surprised that a letter of understanding would be necessary between yourself, the House authority, and the Commissioner of Official Languages.

• 1555

Moreover, from the text of the letter, we sense that there are some differences of opinions between the Commissioner of Official Languages and yourself, or your legal counsel. By yourself I mean the position of Speaker of the House of Commons.

One particular paragraph of the letter stands out:

Whereas the Speaker of the House believes that the Commissioner's jurisdiction under the OLA is limited to the investigation of complaints concerning the administration of the House and does not include the internal work and proceedings of the House and its committees;

The Commissioner holds a different view, arguing that the OLA applies broadly to all areas of the federal administration and that it should have priority status, much like politics cannot interfere with the justice process. In my opinion, no one is above, or can claim to be above the OLA.

However, after reading the letter of understanding in its entirety, I'm not implying that you and the Commissioner disagree terribly every day. I understand the situation. However, this letter appears to be setting a dangerous precedent. If every government authority or department covered by the Official Languages Act starts signing letters of understanding, who is going to oversee these agreements? Moreover, when a conflict arises, who will be asked to intercede?

Is signing this type of letter of understanding something new? Is this the first time we've seen this? And why was this letter of understanding signed by your predecessor Mr. Goldbloom on the very last day of his term of office, and by you two months later?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I'll start by answering your last question. I signed the letter of understanding when I in fact received it. Mr. Goldbloom signed it when he was able to. That's how things go.

As for your other question, I consider that I have a constitutional obligation to protect the rights and privileges of parliamentarians. Generally speaking, neither the House of Commons nor its committees submit to the will of outside committees. As the saying goes, the elected representatives of the Canadian people are “masters in their own House”.

I don't want people to misinterpret this letter of understanding. The application of the OLA extends to the administration of the affairs of the House, but not to the work of the House or of its committees.

You were wondering if this was the first agreements of its kind. It's the first time that I've signed this kind of letter of understanding. Perhaps our clerk can tell you if there have been others before it.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Marleau.

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): To my knowledge, there has only been one other such agreement before and undoubtedly it was not as well known. While similar in scope, it concerned privileges and the responsibility of the Speaker vis-à- vis outside agencies wishing to interact with the House and its members. The agreement in question covered RCMP warrants to search Members' offices.

This is a similar agreement that sets our a process for both parties to follow and provides assurances that there will be a follow-up.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I can understand having an agreement with the RCMP. At issue in that instance is the privilege of members to be exempted from warrants issued for all kinds of reasons. We're talking about rights. However, how can the rights of members stand in contradiction with the Official Languages Act or with respect for its provisions? This is where I see a precedent being set.

Where official languages are concerned, this letter of understanding sets a precedent which has me somewhat perturbed. We talk about the rights of elected representatives, as if these individuals are above the Official Languages Act in light of their status as elected officials. In my view, the Official Languages Act is as sacred as the oath of allegiance sworn by MPs to the Government of Canada and to the Queen.

• 1600

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I'll let the clerk elaborate further on that later, but let me simply say this: it must be absolutely clear that I have a constitutional obligation, in my opinion, to safeguard the rights and privileges of the elected members of the House of Commons. I was elected Speaker to protect these rights. Therefore, I cannot and I must not allow these rights and privileges to be subject to the scrutiny of an institution other than the House of Commons and its members assembled. If that is allowed to happen, it would seem to me that anyone could call into question virtually anything we do in the House.

I will now turn the floor over to my clerk. Perhaps he has something else he'd like to add.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Getting back to the crux of the matter, why the need for a letter of understanding in the first place? Rather than examine the question in the context of territorial jurisdiction or privileges, the letter of understanding came about as a result of conversations with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, further to a problem that had arisen in a parliamentary committee. A complaint had been directed to me, in my capacity of clerk, by way of the Official Languages Liaison Office of the Human Resources Directorate.

When complaints had to do with a parliamentary committee, I would respond that there was nothing I could do about it, because a parliamentary committee was involved. The complaint would then be forwarded to the Commissioner of Official Languages. Sometimes, the matter would be forgotten for several weeks, resulting in a certain level of frustration.

There were one or two incidents during the 1970s and several more during the 1980s. I believe Mr. Goldbloom experienced something similar. The letter of understanding represents a commitment to a particular course of action. When a complaint is made about the interpretation of the OLA by Mr. Goldbloom or when someone complains about the Speaker's interpretation of parliamentary privilege, we follow certain steps. We are committed to following up on both types of complaints within 30 days. This does not prevent people from lodging complaints against the chairman of a committee or against a parliamentary committee as such.

Complaints against a parliamentary committee are filed with my office and forwarded to the chair of the committee or to the responsible official within the requisite period of time. We do not redirect the complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages as we once did. The committee thus apprises itself of the situation and decides on the appropriate corrective action. In both instances, the matter was resolved to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Official Languages. This procedure was followed when a jurisdictional conflict or perceived conflict arose.

In terms of the administration of House affairs, the letter of understanding also represents a commitment. For all matters governed by the Board of Internal Economy, we insist on compliance with the provisions of the OLA. We stringently enforce the legislation and try to respond to complaints as quickly as possible.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I understand. In responding to my first question, Mr. Speaker, you stated that it was your duty to protect constitutional rights. You mentioned the Constitution. To my knowledge, the Constitution says that both official languages must be respected.

Furthermore, by what constitutional authority can you claim that instead of delegating to the Commissioner of Official Languages responsibility for interpreting any official languages complaint you may receive, you can stand up to the Commissioner or even sign a letter of understanding?

Mr. Gilbert Parent: I'm saying that I have certain constitutional obligations. As you know, any member or senator can raise such matters by way of a motion to the House, or Senate, which is then debated. The matter is then discussed and a decision is reached. The decision ultimately rests with the Senate or House of Commons. I don't think of myself as the supreme authority with all of the answers. I hold opinions and views. I provide my interpretation of the situation. If you disagree with me, you'll let me know, if not here, then in the House of Commons.

• 1605

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Fine.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Senator Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser: Mr. Plamondon is not going to believe this, but I tend to agree with him.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I'm delighted to hear that.

Senator Joan Fraser: It's a first.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: It's a good habit to get into .

Senator Joan Fraser: I'm surprised to see the basic concept of parliamentary privilege applied in the case of legislation like this. I thought that the privileges of members and senators had more to do with such things as freedom of expression and the freedom to work as parliamentarians. However, when it comes to rights enjoyed by all Canadians, I don't see how the House of Commons can claim that while the law applies, it will decide exactly how it applies to it.

I'm rather speechless, Mr. Speaker, and somewhat disturbed by all of this. Let's talk about people. I know that personally you appreciate the importance of official languages, but one day, one of your successors may not be quite as understanding or sympathetic. What will happen then?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: As I see it, if there are any changes to be made, they will be made by the parliamentarians themselves. You argue that another speaker may not be so understanding. With all due respect, I think that that individual would have no business being speaker in the first place. We have two official languages.

As I said earlier, we received a total of 17 complaints, including those received on the administration side, and two other ones. I consider that we dealt with these complaints in a very expeditious fashion and that we did everything we could to follow up on them.

I believe you had another question and I will defer to the clerk.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I just wanted to say that I can understand your being surprised with this interpretation because it is not well known. For example, neither the Senate nor the House of Commons is subject to the provisions of the Information Act, and this is strictly by choice. However, in that particular case, it's clear that the House and Senate administrations are not bound by this legislation.

Technically, we are not subject to the authority of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. However, we do respect the spirit of the act. Both Houses conduct themselves in such a way as to respect employment equity provisions, much as if they were bound by the relevant legislation. Yet, technically, the commissioner does not have the right to conduct an investigation, particularly if it involves the work of the House.

If either the Senate or the House of Commons passes a resolution that discriminates in the area of human rights, the House and Senate are the only authorities that can rectify the mistake, if in fact one has been committed. Moreover, we have a charter of human rights. Since I'm not a lawyer, I don't dare say anything about it in the presence of the senator seated to your left.

Senator Joan Fraser: Don't worry, he doesn't bite.

Mr. Robert Marleau: There is even a case of a challenge being launched under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter, which was adopted almost two decades ago, applies to Parliament. To what extent does it conflict with the principle of parliamentary privilege? We're not entirely certain. The Supreme Court ruled in one instance only, namely in Donahoe v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that the privileges of both Houses and of all legislatures in Canada took precedence over the charter where freedom of the press was at issue. This is the only case that went all the way to the Supreme Court which held that parliamentary privilege could reasonably be invoked in this case. However, it left the door open by saying that it was not giving parliamentarians carte blanche to invoke parliamentary privilege.

• 1610

If the basic law safeguarding the rights of Canadians can be overridden by parliamentary privilege, then logically, one can assume that the court could rule that both Houses must conduct themselves in a reasonable manner in interpreting the Official Languages Act. This is also a policy issue. If, in Donahoe v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the court ruled that parliamentary privilege took precedence over the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then logically, one can assume that parliamentary privilege will also override the Official Languages Act.

Senator Joan Fraser: In order to change that and to make both Houses subject to the Commissioner's jurisdiction, could we pass a simple resolution or would we need to adopt legislation to that effect?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We could bring forward a motion in the House, debate it and then pass a resolution.

Senator Joan Fraser: A resolution?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, either house can adopt a simple resolution.

Senator Joan Fraser: If the House of Commons passed a resolution, it would apply only to the House, not to the Senate.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: You're right.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, you are. In my opinion, it wouldn't be necessary for us to amend the text of the legislation if the House simply announced that henceforth, its work and that of its parliamentary committees was now subject to the provisions of the OLA. That would suffice.

Senator Joan Fraser: What a day that would be for Parliament. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You talked about passing a resolution. What about an amendment, given that under the Constitution, the interpretation wasn't clear? Elsewhere, the interpretation of the act is clear, but not in this case. Maybe I should put that question to the senator.

A voice: We have a new witness!

Senator Gérald-A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): In my view, one obvious consideration has been overlooked. The Constitution reigns supreme in Canada. It governs the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. I'll concede that you are partially right when you say that courts of law have no jurisdiction over parliamentary privilege, what we refer to in law as lex parliamenti. While there is such a thing as parliamentary privilege, bilingual does not fall into this category. Bilingualism is a principle entrenched in the Canadian Constitution, specifically in sections 16 to 20 or 22 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in section 133 in the case of the Quebec and federal governments, and in section 23 of the Manitoba Act.

This is a fascinating debate. I wasn't expecting it. However, I am somewhat surprised to see that a letter of understanding was required between the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Speaker of the House. In my opinion, it's a question of how the act should be applied. When you rule on a question of privilege, you are the supreme authority. The courts have often said that they would not intervene in matters of parliamentary privilege and that the Speaker was in fact the guardian of parliamentary privilege.

Having said this, I'm forced to admit that because language rights were entrenched in the Canadian Constitution, on the subject of bilingualism, the Constitution takes precedence. There's no way around this. The Official Languages Act is a quasi constitutional act, but it is not above the Constitution. The Constitution overrides the Official Languages Act.

The courts will refuse to intervene to overturn decisions made by the speakers of the House of Commons and Senate on matters of simple parliamentary privilege. This is one of the privileges of the legislative branch. However, if Parliament passes a bill that has not been drafted in both languages or fails to respect a person's right to speak in either language, then the courts will step in.

I'm not saying that a letter of understanding is outside the realm of possibility. On the contrary, such an agreement can be reached, provided the parties do not overstep their jurisdiction. I can't imagine the Commissioner of Official Languages disagreeing with you over a question of privilege. That's hard to fathom, because the Commissioner has no authority over a matter such as privilege. Even the courts are not authorized to intervene on matters of privilege. However, they may step in if the Constitution and the principle of bilingualism have been violated.

• 1615

Can provision be made for this in a letter of understanding? Perhaps. I haven't had the opportunity to familiarize myself fully with the text of the protocol. As I said before, in a legislative assembly, the Speaker is the guardian of privilege. He is the master of his own house. However, over and above the Speaker, the Prime Minister and anyone else, there's the Constitution and no one can violate the provisions of the Constitution. What happens if these provisions are violated? Well, the court steps in and makes a ruling. As Mr. Marleau said, the court has often acknowledged the considerable respect it has for both legislative houses, that is for the Senate and the House of Commons, and has said that it would not interfere in matters of parliamentary privilege. However, the court will not remain silent if the Constitution is violated.

That's al I wanted to say. This is such an interesting topic that I wish I had more time to reflect upon it. I read the letter of understanding quickly and I find it to be rather general. In my view, it should be more specific and should strike more of a balance.

Someone once argued that it wasn't necessary to translate everything that transpired in committee and I recall giving my opinion on this. I argued that section 133 was very clear. All laws must be passed in both languages during all three reading stages and if they are not, then Parliament is violating the Constitution. Must committees also do the same thing? In my view, since a committee is a by-product of the House, it must be as bilingual as the House of Commons. People may have been somewhat surprised by this view, but the government ultimately accepted it.

In my opinion, the Constitution always takes precedence. I'm not talking about laws here. In terms of freedom of expression, members of the House of Commons and Senate enjoy broader freedom of expression than do other Canadians. The courts have acknowledged this fact. A letter of understanding may be the way to go, but it would take more than one day to draft a very good one.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: It would take longer than one day, sir. The legislation isn't at issue here, but rather the power to investigate the House of Commons.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: The Commissioner's power to investigate the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Yes.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: This bothers me a little, because it involves intervening in a legislative body that is equal in stature to the executive and judiciary. If someone wants to arrest a senator or a member, the Speaker of the House of Commons is contacted directly and his permission sought. It's even stronger in England. Since they don't even have a constitution, to whom is the Speaker accountable? They follow lofty principles, but nevertheless, I don't think that they can launch an investigation without the Speaker's permission.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: You're asking who advises the Speaker. That would be the House of Commons. The Speaker of the Senate receives advice from senators.

• 1620

That's why I informed Mr. Plamondon that I would be obliged to abide by the rules and laws of the House if a motion was brought to the House for debate and the House decided that for some reason, a certain course of action should be followed. In some respects, I am the servant of the House. I'm not the one who drafts the laws governing its operations. However, under the Constitution, I have a duty to safeguard the rights and privileges of parliamentarians.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: You guarantee these privileges.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: That's right.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: You're more than a mere servant. You ensure that the privileges of members and senators are recognized and respected.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: We could go on debating this question indefinitely. Maybe we should opt for a more practical solution and strike a subcommittee, which could be chaired by Senator Beaudoin. I would be happy to serve on this committee, along with a representative of each party, to consider this issue so that the committee can take a stand and make a recommendation to both houses, either calling for the status quo to be maintained or calling for a resolution.

Obviously, if all parties serve on the sub-committee, then the matter won't need to be debated at great length in both houses. Perhaps this would be one way of resolving the problem. The senator said he needed more than one day to ponder this question. Personally, I've had this letter of understanding for a month now, and every time I read it, I see... At times, I like what I'm reading, and at other times, I have some serious concerns. Perhaps we could try to strike some kind of balance.

Surely a great deal of thought must have gone into this letter of understanding. It wasn't drafted on a whim. Perhaps it can be improved upon, done away with or amended. However, I think anyone who is interested should take the time to reflect further on this matter.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: May I respond, Madam Chair?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): By all means.

[English]

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: You know, this protocol was not written just overnight. It didn't take two weeks to do it. It took two years to try to sort everything out.

The House wants to obey all the laws of Canada—of course it does—and in so doing, we believe we are simply being good citizens of Canada. And yet, when there is any infringement, or the possibility of infringement, of questioning the House, surely the House has the responsibility of debating such an issue with its own members. We are the elected members of the country.

Now, there were discussions with our clerk, with our lawyers, with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and with the deputy clerks, and all along what we had in mind was “Let's get this clear. How are we going to work here?” That's all we were trying to do.

How do you get something clear? You try to write a protocol. If this and this and this occurs, you handle it. If this and this and this occurs, I handle it. Then, in the best Canadian tradition, I think, what we have here is a memorandum, a memorandum of understanding as to how we're going to operate.

Do I think the House should operate bilingually? Of course. Please—what am I going to answer? We're a bilingual country, officially bilingual.

[Translation]

That's why we have the right to speak either in French

[English]

or in English, as you want to do it. Of course. If there is a problem in the administration....

Louis, if you get on the bus

[Translation]

and if you cannot speak French to the driver, then lodge a complaint. We'll look into the situation

[English]

and we'll try to regulate it as best we can. We'll try to correct it. That's what we're going to do. We're not going to say “Oh, don't come in here complaining to us.” No, we'll take the complaint and we'll try to answer.

If, by the same token, something happens in committee, we're going to ask the committee to resolve it, hopefully. The committee is the master of its own destiny, just as the House is. But we don't hold this up that you're above the law. We don't want to be above the law, but we do want to perform our duties and our responsibilities, and my duties and responsibilities are very clear. For 500 years the responsibilities of the Speaker have been set out, and all we're doing here with this memorandum of understanding is trying to make it clear who deals with what.

• 1625

Now, if that is being intransigent, then I suggest to you that many of the things that are done are intransigencies if they come to an understanding that there is a certain responsibility for this group and another responsibility for that.

I began with a statement, and I stay by it, that the House of Commons does not submit itself to any external inquiries, and yet the House of Commons is more than willing to deal with any complaints against itself.

Do I hear anyone here saying that the House of Commons has not taken up its responsibilities? Is there anyone on this committee who says that? If so, I'm here; tell me, and tell me what it is. I am responsible. It's not my clerk. I'm the fellow, right here. If I can't solve it, I'm going back to the source of my authority. The source of my authority is, yes, the Constitution, as you said, but it's also the members of Parliament, duly elected by our Canadian citizens. To the extent that I can carry out my responsibilities in a fashion that is clear, then that is why we had this protocol, this letter of understanding.

I hope for your purposes my position is clear, and I hope the interpretation I have placed on this protocol will become clear to you also.

If at any time you want me to appear before this committee

[Translation]

or anywhere else to discuss my responsibilities, I would be more than happy to do so.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Parent, we very much appreciate your taking the time to come here today. I would suggest to Mr. Plamondon that since is our last meeting, we wait out the summer...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Fine.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): ... that is that we sit on your proposal for the summer, and if necessary, reconsider it in the fall. We would then have a full complement of members.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Alright.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): We could examine the matter more closely in the fall, if you wish.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Fine.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Again, thank you, Speaker Parent. Are there any more questions for either Mr. Parent or Mr. Marleau? I know that Mr. Marleau can stay a few minutes longer.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: No other questions? Then I want to thank you for having invited me. I hope you will do so again.

[Editor's note: The meeting continued in camera]