HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 12, 2001

• 1106

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I'll call the meeting to order.

I see a quorum for carrying on our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-10, the poet laureate bill.

We have with us the mover of the bill in case there are issues, but I believe at our previous meeting we dealt with issues, evidence, and commentary on the bill. So our order today would take us directly to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and a recommendation to report to the House.

There is one other item of business that I would like to get to when we've completed this, and it is shown on your agenda. It's the reference to liaison committee associate membership. We'll see if we can resolve that this morning.

I look to my clerk, who is always excellent and supportive of the chair. You will have copies of the bill and we can now move through the bill.

Shall clause 1 carry?

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): With respect to this bill, I have some amendments by way of a specific motion that I believe everyone has copies of at their desks, and I have also reviewed what I am suggesting and bringing forward by way of this motion with Senator Grafstein.

Does everyone have a copy of the motion?

First of all, in the interests of establishing the actual office, the position of, I have suggested through this motion that 75.1(1) read:

There is hereby established the position of Parliamentary Poet Laureate, the holder of which is an officer of the Library of Parliament.

This would in effect replace lines 7 through 9 in Bill S-10 as presented.

Secondly, with respect to lines 20 through 30, in the interests of brevity and hopefully in the interests of clarity, I am suggesting that through this motion proposed subsections (3) and (4) of the bill as originally prepared be deleted and that a new subsection (3) be included:

The Parliamentary Poet Laureate holds office for a term not exceeding two years, at the pleasure of the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons acting together.

And the final point is that if you refer to the next page, or the last page, of the bill, Bill S-10 as proposed, it did say in the original that the parliamentary poet laureate “shall”, and then defined four areas. The reality is when we thought about it, not every poet laureate would like to be commanded by the word “shall” to perform all of those tasks. So we have substituted the word “may”, which is more permissive than mandatory.

I would move and Mr. Jordan would second these amendments.

• 1110

The Chair: Thank you.

There's a motion to amend the bill with the items discussed. Is there any discussion of those amendments? Is there any further clarification needed?

Mr. Macklin, for the record, is there any fuller clarification we could give to explain the reasons for the amendments? You've certainly outlined the amendments. Is there perhaps a short encapsulation?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: The initial reason for doing it in this fashion is to make sure there's absolute clarity that we are creating a specific office and this person is an officer of the Library of Parliament.

The second reason is simply to clarify that the individual is to hold the office for a term of two years, only to be removed during that term if there's unanimous consent between both the speakers of the Commons and the Senate. Beyond that, the other, I believe, is obvious.

The Chair: That's great. Thank you very much.

Mr. Saada, you have a comment or question on this?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Yes. You will let me know if I am out of order. I had a question and it is probably my fault if I did not manage to ask it. I would like to know if the poet to be hired will be French-speaking or English-speaking.

A Voice: I hope he or she will be bilingual.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I am putting the question to those who are sponsoring the bill. I worked for 17 years in the translation field and in all of my life, I have met only two people who were able to work equally well in both languages. When I hear you say that you hope the poet will be bilingual, I have lot of trouble believing that that could work. I would like an answer.

[English]

The Chair: There's a question that comes up. As I read it, the poet laureate from time to time must neither be, or in any way be, an English speaker or a French speaker or an aboriginal tongue speaker or any other.... The bill does not make specific provision for that.

I won't comment further. It may be that Ms. Jennings or perhaps Senator Grafstein would be prepared to speak to that for the record.

Colleagues, I'm going to put the question on the amendments, because Mr. Saada has raised an issue that is not directly related to the amendments. So I'm going to put the question on the amendments moved by Mr. Macklin, and then we'll deal with Mr. Saada's question.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: We have a point of order from Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: May we have a recorded vote, please?

[English]

(Amendments agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2; abstentions 1)

The Chair: We'll now deal with Mr. Saada's question. Senator Grafstein is here with us today. Perhaps there is some comment, Senator, you could provide to address that.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein (Metro Toronto, Lib.): Before I established this I consulted widely among colleagues in the Senate. This question did arise prior to the final drafting of the bill and it did arise in the hearings before the Senate.

The question is whether or not it would be appropriate to have more than one poet laureate to represent the various languages, and the conclusion, the wide consensus reached by everybody, including the heads of the five cultural institutions that are in the majority francophone, decided that one poet laureate would be more appropriate and that in time, because of the shortness of the term, there would be true alternance so that you would not only have the two major languages addressed primarily and in paramount terms, but it would also leave room for others who provide poetry in other languages, such as the aboriginal tongues. The purpose of this bill with a short term is to allow the two official languages to be well represented and still leave room for third-party languages to interject.

• 1115

When it comes to the issue of translation, which is a key problem, the reason this was not dealt with is that a poem is a work of art on its own, and you can't translate a poem from one language to the other overnight. It's not something you can do by a literal translation. So this would leave time for the poems given to Parliament to be translated into both official languages.

I think the bill envisages a primary responsibility for the two official languages through the office of the poet laureate, with ample time to ensure these poems are translated artistically and aesthetically in both official languages.

The Chair: Mr. Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We had to wait for Mr. Saada's question, and for explanations from the senator, to enlighten us. Unfortunately, these are all words; nothing has been included in the bill about this, nor is there anything elsewhere. You know that I am totally opposed to the creation of a poet laureate position, but I think that the Liberal majority has already made up its mind otherwise. I am convinced that if this is an official position, the person that will occupy it will have a role to play with regard to Parliament. There are two official languages in our Parliament: English and French. I insist that the work, be it oral or written, be done in both languages.

The poet must be able to express himself or herself orally and on paper in French and in English. This would head off a lot of complaints and would allow Stéphane Dion to breathe more easily, as he is responsible for official languages. The poet's salary and expenses and all budgets necessary to proper operation would be paid in large part with money coming from francophones outside Quebec and francophones within Quebec. I insist that it be made clear that the position must be occupied by a bilingual person.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you for your comment.

If there are no further comments or questions, then I'll put the question on the....

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to support the bill, but I cannot do so if there is to be a single poet because this is absolutely impossible. I understand Mr. Asselin's proposal that a bilingual person be hired, but that is physically impossible.

I say this in all humility, but I was a professional translator for 17 years and I know what I am talking about. Only a poet can translate a poet. A bilingual person cannot necessarily do the job. We are not talking about translating motor-assembly guidelines at Air Canada. The only way of getting around this difficulty is to hire two poets, one for each official language. Barring that, in spite of all the empathy I feel and the urge I have to vote for the bill, I will not be able to support it. I need to be assured that there will be someone to produce poetry in French and poetry in English on a permanent and equal basis.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I'm very interested in what you have to say.

I have a question, through the chair, to Mr. Saada. Is it your understanding that there would be an English poet and a French poet and that because they are poets, they would be able to translate each other's work? I'm trying to understand where we are—

• 1120

Mr. Jacques Saada: No. I'm going to say it in English just to make sure I'm properly understood.

In the history of poetry, I'm not aware—I should be, but I'm not—of any poet who has been translated by someone who is not a poet. The translation of poetry is not translation; it's adaptation, imagination, and re-creation all together. There is no dictionary you can follow for that. It's emotions and sensitivity, all kinds of things. So you cannot do it by having one person translate the work of another. What you can do is if there is a topic on which the poet we would have, whatever the language may be, was going to produce something, then you can have another poet with the same topic make his own poetry come alive. But you cannot expect a translation of one by another. It is very rare.

In history we can refer to Baudelaire and Mallarmé, for instance, in French, who were poets who translated Edgar Allan Poe. But you cannot imagine someone who is a linguist or a translator by trade indulging in poetry translation. It's very difficult.

If I were told that—and I don't want to know the technicalities of it, because I have trust in what we will do—two people acting parallel to each other, half-half or whatever, are going to produce in either of the official languages poetry along the lines they choose or as the bill proposes, I would feel very comfortable with that. I think it would be a pity not to agree to take this kind of attitude. I think the merits of the bill are so great that I would like to strongly support it. I just need to have some reassurance on these grounds.

The Chair: We're not pressed for time, so we'll continue the discussion. It's useful.

Senator Grafstein has a comment.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: Let me tell you why I oppose Mr. Saada's idea.

If in fact you had two poets laureate, first of all, there would be two acts of creation, and instead of bringing the two linguistic solitudes together and compelling one to try to understand the other in an artistic form, you would do exactly the reverse. You would have a French poet and a non-French poet, and instead of enticing them, as we said in committee, so that there would be an understanding of each cultural art form, you would maintain what I consider to be two artistic solitudes. I believe we have too many divisions in this country, and if we cannot come together in one artistic form and compel by that artistic form others to participate in an artistic way....

As you say, there was a recent award to a poet laureate in Canada, Anne Carson. She is not only a poet in her own right, but she also is a fantastic translator of one of the great European poets, Paul Celan. It has taken her years to translate his poetry—not days, years. Rilke, one of the greatest poets of this century, who wrote in German, has been translated into English and French. There was a recent book by a fellow by the name of Gass who indicated that it took some people 30 years to translate one of his poems appropriately. So the art form is indecipherable and indistinguishable from the artist.

Say the first language of the first poet laureate happens to be French. Let's assume that for the moment. At that moment there would be a perception on the part of people who do not speak French regarding understanding that particular poet. But to set up two, to my mind, is to move away from an artistic form and to have miserably competing art forms, as opposed to compelling people to say here's an art form; here's one vision of the country.

• 1125

In the course of five or six years you will hear a vision of the country from an outstanding francophone poet who may or may not come from the province of Quebec. You'll hear it in English, and you'll hear it in other tongues. That multiplicity of visions is what makes Canada great. At the outset to say there are two competing visions, to my mind, goes against the nature of our Confederation.

I was not surprised at all when the commissioner of bilingualism, who is one of the nominators here, supported this idea. The official language commissioner—we have one; we don't have two. We have one head of the Canada Council; we don't have three or two. We have one head of the CBC. So if we head the artistic machinery in one form, surely in the artistic form we can do that. We don't have two painters to paint Canada. We have a painter giving his or her particular vision.

Mr. Saada, I understand what you say. I've lived this issue since I started in politics in 1961. But to my mind, to establish this duality in the sense that there is a duality in an art form goes against the idea of one Canada. This is not in any way, shape, or form to diminish the importance of official bilingualism—not in any way, shape, or form. I think it enhances it. It will require students in Quebec, in Acadia, in northern Saskatchewan, or in Ontario whose first language is French, if there is an English poet, to study that poet.

Otherwise, why? I didn't have access to Gabrielle Roy until 20 years ago. Why? There was no necessity to do so. She wasn't available in English, and that was wrong. That was wrong. But to set up a duality at the beginning I think would diminish unity and a creative vision.

So I urge you.... Quite frankly, I've worked on this bill for two years. I would rather the bill die than provide this type of—I don't like saying it, because it's an unkind word—an artificial duality. I want artistic unity, and I think we can compel it in the vision of one person, one at a time. A majority of viewpoints starts with a majority of one—one vision, one at a time. In the course of ten years, you will have a series of magnificent visions of this country that will boggle your mind and be beyond our imagination.

So I urge you, humbly, Mr. Chairman, if you could, to support the bill in its current form.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lill have something to add as well.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Senator, that's very well put, and I agree with you. I guess the problem we're facing is that we're trying to use an artistic form to help heal a divide or a bridge. When the issue that we're trying to bridge is a language and culture issue, we use an artistic form whose primary vehicle is language. So we're in a bit of a bind.

I'm sure you've been all around this issue. Was there a particular reason why there isn't language in the bill that says that the poet laureate or the speakers will ensure that the poet laureates over a series of ten years accurately reflect Canadian society? Is there a reason why that isn't in there?

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: There's no question at all in my mind that when the poet laureate is selected, his or her poems will be translated ultimately into the other language of the two official languages. It doesn't matter if that person's first language is French, English, or aboriginal, as an example. There's no question at all in my mind. But the question is how to do it, when to do it, and with what timing.

Instantaneous translation derogates art, and I think Mr. Saada said precisely that. Anybody who understands the art of translation understands that it's almost impossible through the Hansard to do it. For instance, if something does appear on the official record in Hansard, if it's read into Hansard, it automatically will be translated. It won't be in the best artistic form, but it will be done. That's why I think the official language commissioner was satisfied about this. It will ultimately be done, but it will be done in a way and a shape and a form that will match the poetic vision of the author.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But is there a reason why we can't have wording in there that says that we will pick poet laureates over a period of time to ensure they reflect the French, the English, the aboriginal, and the immigrant?

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: I think that's implicit in the nomination process.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

• 1130

Senator Jerhamiel Grafstein: In the nomination process you have the five cultural institutions. For example—just one small example—I didn't understand, but since this bill has happened, there has been a huge interest at the Canada Council in poetry. In the last two years, all of a sudden, there's a sudden surge in that. They are very excited about this. They are doing poetry now in the subways, triggered to a large measure by the impulse of this particular bill. Clearly, they understand the problem of translation. For Mr. Saada, if he wants to satisfy himself about the complexities of translation, just read this book by Gass on Rilke, which was just published and says exactly this.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Senator, I'm not—

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: So my point to you is that I think the five heads of our institutions—by the way, the majority of whom are francophone in their first language, the majority—will clearly satisfy themselves that this can be done. The Canada Council will put in place, I'm sure, funding to do this in an artistic way—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Not translation—I'm not concerned about translation.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm concerned about, if for the next 20 years the poet laureate is anglophone, to whom do the francophones complain?

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: It will never be. That's an impossibility. Under the system of nomination it's an impossibility, because if you take a look at who the nominees are.... Where do the five nominees come from? The head of the Canada Council, the official languages commissioner, the head of the National Library, the head of the National Archives, and the librarian.

I may be wrong, but I believe that four of the five of those nominees are currently francophone. Now, why would anybody, having in mind the importance of this position, not satisfy themselves that ultimately there's going to be a fair balance between the two? It will never happen. It's an impossibility.

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you. I didn't have my hand up, but I would like to say something.

I support your argument on that, and I think about Roch Carrier, who is a Québécois writer and who is known across the country and across the globe for his very simple story, The Hockey Sweater. Who knows how that is perceived in different languages? But we all know that it is perceived as a universal story we can all relate to. He is the head of the National Library.

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein: He supports this bill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: He is the national librarian. Here's an example of somebody who really represents artistic unity.

I do worry about the idea of increasing two solitudes with that kind of measure of putting in two poets. It does defeat the purpose, in my mind. I just thought I would add that.

The Chair: Monsieur Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill should be passed by the House of Commons so that we have an official poet who will speak and write on behalf of Parliament. I can already hear the first complaints that will be sent to the Official Languages Commissioner the day after he or she begins working. I imagine that Minister Dion, who is responsible for official languages, will be questioned about this on a daily basis.

I am also thinking about all the francophones outside Quebec, Franco-Ontarians, Franco-Manitobans, and even Quebeckers. I can just see the headlines: “English Canada now has poet laureate,” or “English Canada hires poet.” On the other hand, if you hire a francophone, the senator will be opposed to the bill because he will not be able to read or understand that person.

Earlier, we passed a motion on section 75.1, and that section read as follows:

75.1 (1) There shall be an officer of the Library of Parliament called the Parliamentary Poet Laureate.

If the person is currently employed by Parliament, he or she must necessarily in the exercise of duties be able to express himself or herself in French and in English. This person may already have been chosen; perhaps we could even see his or her photograph. I would like the honourable senator to show us the photograph. I would like to have the opportunity to meet this person and to at least say hello. If he or she has already been chosen, and if this is one of those situations where you want to put someone somewhere, tell us who it is and show us the photograph in order that we too may be able to identify him or her. If that person is already a member of the Parliamentary Library staff, he or she must be able to express himself or herself in both official languages.

• 1135

If one decodes what you have said, I believe you mean that the person you want to hire is English-speaking. But he or she must be understood by francophones as well as by anglophones. Tell me I'm wrong; prove it. Tomorrow morning, you will hear it said that English Canada has its poet. I am convinced that the person has already been chosen and is English-speaking. He or she is an employee, or will be, of the Parliamentary Library.

According to law, that person should be able to answer me in French and reply as well to an English-speaker. There are employees of the Parliamentary Library who are unilingual English speakers. Someone must now be found and given this poet's position. I find this unacceptable.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, I'll recognize Mr. Saada for another intervention, but let's try to—

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I will be very brief. I refuse to have my statement exploited for political ends.

I am not imputing intentions to anyone. I am not claiming that the candidate, English or French-speaking, has already been chosen. I apologize, but if that is the position of the Bloc Québécois, it is not mine.

My perspective is entirely based on extremely practical reasons, concrete ones. Artistic expression is difficult to translate. As to the potential frustration of anglophones or francophones, I will leave that issue to those who have time to waste with something that appears futile to me.

I am talking about the bill and my concern is purely of an artistic nature. I do not agree when I hear that appointing two different poets would further the two solitudes. I don't share that viewpoint because it could very well happen that they would inspire one another. Mr. Jordan proposed a very sensible thing. I am simply saying that to allow artistic expression to spontaneously flow in one or the other of the official languages, it would be a good idea to expressly state somewhere that that is what we want to do.

I will conclude with that. I refuse to have you exploit what I say for political ends that are not congruent with my own.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Well, colleagues, the debate we're having is quintessentially Canadian. We are neither the first nor the last group of members of Parliament to debate this. The issues, however, are quite real. The poet laureate to be appointed if this bill is adopted by the House—of course it will be the House that will decide—whether he or she is French-speaking, English-speaking, or aboriginal, and there are any number of combinations...the poet laureate, if there is to be one, will not stand alone in a solitary way and in solitude. In fact, he or she will actually stand proud, reflecting whatever language he or she speaks, and it will stand as an invitation to all the other languages and cultures to listen up as Canadians and share in the artistic expression of the poetry.

There are always risks in living together, but I think the senator has made a fairly good case for taking a chance on our fellow citizens here.

So I'm glad we did have the discussion here, and if there is no further discussion, I'll put the question on clause 1 as amended.

Monsieur Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: First, I would simply like the clerk to indicate for the benefit of the committee that Mr. Guimond had to leave because he has to make a speech in the House of Commons.

[English]

The Chair: The House is ongoing, and I'm sure he had to leave and was necessarily not available for the vote.

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

• 1140

The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We've completed that.

Thank you, Senator.

We have one other item of business, which we're not going to proceed with. I just want to alert members that there is an apparent need to place associate members on the liaison committee, which of course is the committee of committee chairs. Because we will likely have a committee striking report when we come back in September, it's probably unnecessary to complete this exercise now. But for the record and for the clerk, and for all of you who will come back in the fall, we will be following Standing Order 107(5) and reporting associate members of the liaison committee back to the House when we come back in the fall.

Having said that, I thank you very much. I will probably not be returning in the fall as chair. It has been a pleasure serving with all of you.

Seeing no further business, we're now adjourned.