LANG Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 4, 2003

¿

0920

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

À

1030

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.))

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.)

À

1035

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)

À

1040

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

---

CANADA

Official Languages

---

NUMBER 007

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 4, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0920)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Providing a full account would perhaps be a bit long, but if I may, I'm going to summarize the case, which will also enable you to see that I have followed the developments as regards the broadcasting of parliamentary business in both official languages.

    Mr. Quigley, who lives in the Moncton region, lodged a complaint because when House debates were broadcast, he received only the floor. So he was unable to follow the proceedings when they were in French. However, as stipulated in the Official Languages Act, he wanted to be able to follow the proceedings in both languages.

    The trial decision required the government to make the proceedings available in both official languages throughout the country. The appeal lodged by the government in this regard deals with the Speaker's privilege. The Speaker, as well as the Board of Internal Economy, consider that broadcasting the debates in both official languages would be a privilege, whereas we, the Committee of Official Languages, are of the opinion that in this case, the act must be applied, and that Mr. Quigley, like all Francophones living outside Quebec, should be able to watch the proceedings in both official languages. If I have understood correctly, that is precisely the topic on which the committee would like to make itself heard.

À  (1030)  

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)): I simply want to point out that we have a quorum; so let's begin.

    Ms. Allard.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): When you talk about the floor, which one are you referring to? The provincial or...?

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You can watch the proceedings on TV in English or in French. When we use the term “floor”, it's like the channel “3” that we have here, in other words the floor.

    We ask a question in French, and Mr. Bryden answers in English. Is that a bilingual process? Mr. Quigley, for example, who is an anglophone living in the Moncton region, would like to hear Mr. Sauvageau, Mr. Bryden and Ms. Allard comment in English, whereas another person would like to listen to them in French.

    So the floor, or in other words the sound from the floor, is not considered bilingual in nature. In the Quigley case, it is a detail. What we are talking about here is the availability of a House of Commons service in both official languages.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Does that answer your question, Ms. Allard?

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Mr. Godin would perhaps like to add something.

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): First of all, I would like to say that Mr. Sauvageau should move his motion, and secondly, I plan to support it. The Speaker has chosen to appeal this decision so that it will be stipulated that this is a parliamentary privilege.

    In our opinion, this privilege should not run counter to Canadian laws. So we must make ourselves heard and there must be a debate in the presence of a judge. Otherwise, there will just be the judge and Mr. Quigley, and there will be no debate in that context. But for us, this is a major issue.

    For example, back home in Bathurst, we receive the floor of the House of Commons—what I'm referring to is linked to CPAC—and francophones who do not speak English cannot understand either the question or the answer. The situation is the same for anglophones who do not speak French. But to my mind, it would be very important to ensure that Mr. Bélanger has his lawyers and that he not be required to pay for that out of his own pocket, as that would not be fair.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Mr. Marcil.

    Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): If I understand correctly...I am familiar with the case and I think that is a very good idea, but I'm trying to get a handle on this. Mr. Bélanger is not intervening on behalf of the committee; he is intervening as an individual. The committee is part of the House. So we are an extension of the House, in some ways, and we are challenging the position of the Speaker of the House, because we are not talking about the government but the Speaker of the House of Commons. We are challenging his decision stating that we do not receive our orders from a court. Since we are independent and autonomous, we can allow people on the floor of the Chamber to speak the language of their choice. So we are not required to translate their remarks for the public. Therefore, the committee finds the Speaker's position questionable, and since the committee cannot speak out against its speaker, against the House, in fact—I'm explaining, I'm raising questions, I just want to know if I'm right or not—the chair of the committee has requested intervenor status in this case, and we have accepted to allow him to intervene in the case and we, as a committee, are asking the House to contribute. We are asking the liaison committee to pay for all of the legal fees up to $30,000, but I do not know if the liaison committee will accept or not.

    Is my logic correct? Do I have a good grasp of the situation or not?

À  (1035)  

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Except that the chair is speaking as chair of the committee. It is the committee that wants to make its voice heard, through Mr. Bélanger, during the appeal, it is not Mr. Bélanger as an individual.

    Mr. Serge Marcil: So, if Mr. Bélanger goes as chair of the committee, he can also use the meeting to intervene, speak and explain matters. Have I got that right?

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Does Mr. Bélanger want to speak now? I can ask the clerk to...

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): To begin with, I would like to point out that I have left the Chair and that I do not intend to vote on this resolution in order to avoid putting myself in a conflict of interest situation.

    Second, if I may, I will rapidly give you some background. Mr. Quigley, President of a community near Moncton, New Brunswick, complained to the Commissioner of Official Languages, as Mr. Sauvageau has indicated, that he was unable to follow the debates of the House of Commons when they took place in French, since his cable company—Rogers at that time—provided only the floor audio signal. After some time, the Commissioner of Official Languages came down on his side and said that the House had to ensure that all Canadian citizens could follow the debates of the House in English or French. The House responded that it was fulfilling its requirements already by providing the cable association with one video and three audio signals, and that it was up to the cable company to use those signals as they saw fit. Mr. Quigley was still not satisfied and took his case to the Trial Division of the Federal Court, as provided for in the Official Languages Act. On June 5, 2002, Mr. Justice O'Keefe upheld his argument and stated that the House, because it was subject to the Official Languages Act, had a duty to ensure that its proceedings were available to Canadians in both official languages, and he gave the House of Commons one year to correct the situation.

    In July—and this is where it gets a little more complicated—the committee, which was a joint committee at that time, met in camera—if I can make an interpretation, I hope that I am not violating confidentiality, but this information was later made public through a press release—and took a position opposing the decision by the Board of Internal Economy to appeal the court decision and the committee tried to obtain the status of intervener in the case. Since the joint committee seemed to stop functioning at that time, since the House had been prorogued and the joint committee was not reconvened, it was unable to seek intervener status. As a result, I took upon myself the responsibility of trying to obtain intervener status.

    Something else that should be pointed out is that, at the Trial Division of the Federal Court, the Government of Canada, represented by the Attorney General, was a party to the case along with the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons. But the government decided not to appeal the decision and not to follow the Board of Internal Economy. So at this point the Board of Internal Economy is alone in appealing the lower court decision. The other interveners in the case, by the way, are the Commissioner of Official Languages and myself.

    I also took it upon myself to find a lawyer, and after consulting members of the committee—the joint committee still at that time, even though its future was in doubt—we agreed that the lawyer to retain would be Ronald Caza, who is still representing me.

    I was awarded intervener status in November. It would seem that I was given that status as an individual, except that in the application for leave to intervene it is very clear that my position as joint chair of the joint committee was a key aspect of the matter. So it might be a little more complicated than it seemed.

    That brings us to the situation today, with this resolution, which I will not be voting on, as I said, because it could put me in a conflict of interest situation. If you have any questions, I will try to answer them.

À  (1040)  

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Thank you, Mr. Bélanger. Madame Allard.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Do we know who [Editor's note: inaudible] Quigley?

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: He did. And I know that the lawyer representing him is his son. You can draw whatever conclusion you want from that.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: At the Federal Court of Appeal, do you need to present a written brief for a motion to intervene?

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Mr. Marcil.

    Mr. Serge Marcil: Madam Chair, I feel that this case is not only very reasonable, but also well-founded. I think that we have no right not to support this motion. So we should support it unanimously.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Mr. Sauvageau, a last remark.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Could I ask for a recorded vote?

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): I was just going to call the vote, unless there are any other comments.

    Ms. Allard.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: If the lawyer is told that there is $30,000, it goes without saying that his fee will be $30,000. How was this figure of $30,000 negotiated?

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Chair, I asked the lawyer's office how much it would cost to obtain intervener status, to present a brief, deal with objections to the intervener status, and so on. They assured me that even if it was more than $30,000, the bill would be limited to $30,000. That is why $30,000 is being asked for.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Do you have their hourly rate?

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Thank you.

    Mr. Simard.

    Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I have a question about the structure. Does this mean up to a maximum of $30,000? That is an important distinction because if the costs are $20,000, we obviously will not put $30,000 on the table.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: What we are told is that when an amount is asked for, whether for travel abroad or other reasons, the total amount is requested and whatever is left over goes back to the Liaison Committee. So $30,000 is the maximum that will be requested and if the actual cost is less, the difference will come back to the Liaison Committee.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I just want to point out that when the chair decided to make his objection, there was no question of cost. The costs are not defined, it is a whole package and he is going to ask for the full amount. In order to be able to make the request, there at least has to be a figure. I think that we have to trust the negotiations between Mauril and the lawyer so that he does not have to say that he knows it will be $30,000 right now. That amount is what will be requested of Parliament. It is a limit, simply put. I think that he will have to show us the amounts, but as I said, the Speaker of the House has not asked us how much money he will be spending. He is going to go to court and fight this case. We cannot change things. In any case, I would like to have a vote on this also.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): If no one else wishes to speak, perhaps we can vote right away. All right?

    The motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Official Languages ask the Liaison Committee to make available a budget of $30,000 to enable Mr. Mauril Bélanger to cover part of his lawyer's fees pertaining to his role as intervener in the Quigley case.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madame Chair, I would like my abstention to be recorded, please.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Very well, thank you Mr. Bélanger, it will be noted.

    (Motion agreed to.)

    We will adjourn to the call of the chair.