Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government response to Petitions Nos. 332-4693 to 3324695 inclusive, 332-4702, 332-4704, 332-4709, 332-4717, 3324721 and 332-4724 to 332-4745 inclusive, and I move:

That this House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.

Mr. Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Agreed.

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved

that Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, be read the third time and passed.

He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to preface my remarks on this important occasion by recalling to the House what was said here at another time:

This Bill is placed before the House to strengthen rather than weaken Canadian unity. It is put forward for the purpose of making Canadians, whether they speak English or French, feel at home in this country to the extent that this is practical, and making federal government services available in the two languages.

Those are the words of the Hon. Robert Stanfield in the debate on the first official languages Bill to be considered by this House. It was exactly 19 years ago this week, on July 7, 1969, that the Official Languages Act was read a third time

and passed by all Parties in this House. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition, as he then was, made the following points in his statement:

The purpose of this Bill is not to compel English-speaking Canadians to learn French, and vice versa. This Bill is aimed at providing French-speaking or English-speaking minorities with all federal government services in the language of their choice, as far as it is practical. If the purpose of this Bill were to impose bilingualism, I would oppose it, as I believe virtually every Member of this House would.

He went on further to say:

If this Bill is not administered fairly and sensibly it can very easily create more disunity than unity ... The emphasis ought to be placed on the bilingual nature of the service rather than on the bilingual nature of the servant to the fullest extent possible and also to the extent that it is fully consistent with French and English Canadians being able to pursue careers in the Public Service... If we are to create a feeling of greater unity we have to think in terms of enlarging rights and opportunities, and not of restricting rights and opportunities.

That is the basis of this Bill, Mr. Speaker. That is the essence of this Bill. That is the statement of this Party over the years which has been carried out, developed and evolved by this Government under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to the legislation that we are now considering on third reading.

I want to quote some of the words of the Right Hon. Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition, during the debate on the House of Commons resolution on French-language rights in Manitoba on October 6, 1983. He said:

Years ago, this House approved the principle of official bilingualism for Canada ... It is a noble principle, one which is capable of enriching the life of this nation. By our stand today, we reaffirm our commitment and that of our Party given earlier in this same House of Commons by outstanding and distinguished Canadians such as the Hon. Robert Stanfield and the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark).

Bilingualism is a valued principle and an indispensable dimension of our national life. The program, however, must be implemented with fairness and with equity. It is diminished if it comes to be perceived by large numbers of Canadians as an instrument of division or an instrument of unfairness ... We must seek to understand these differences between Canadians and consider them not as obstacles but as guides to the elaboration of sensible and realistic policies which will enhance rather than lessen the attractiveness of such programs in the minds of all Canadians. Sensitivity to people and the presumption of good faith should be the hallmarks of implementation. They will ensure for bilingualism a more durable character and more pervasive acceptance...

The consistency of the position of this Party, of this Government, is evident from the comments I have just read.

July 7, 1988

Official Languages Act

We have approached the matter of official languages in this same spirit of fairness and equity from the very beginning. When we took office in the autumn of 1984, we stated clearly that one of the Government's aims would be to broaden and strengthen the national consensus on language policy. In the Throne Speech delivered on November 5, 1984, this commitment was expressed in these solemn words: "National unity also demands that the two levels of government co-operate in supporting official language minorities and in fostering the rich multicultural character of Canada. My Government is committed to ensuring that the equality of the two official languages-so vital to our national character and identity-is respected in fact as it is in law. My Ministers acknowledge the need for ongoing improvements and for vigilance in this indispensable area of our national life."

In 1985, the Prime Minister took note of the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages in his annual report as well as the recommendations of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages in its second report. He asked three Ministers primarily responsible for language matters, the Minister of Justice, the President of the Treasury Board and the Secretary of State, to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the Government's over-all policy in this field and to seek ways of improving it. Ministers were seconded in their efforts by a special senior committee of Deputy Ministers which was designated by the Prime Minister to co-ordinate the renewal.

The Official Languages Act was already under study by the Department of Justice in the context of Charter conformity review. That study was broadened to ensure that, as the Prime Minister stated, that vital piece of legislation was strengthened, enhanced and adapted to new conditions and requirements.

The Throne Speech of October 1986 further underlined this commitment in the following terms:

Official bilingualism is an indispensable feature of our national character.

Seventeen years after its enactment, Canada's Official Languages Act now

needs to be revised. Appropriate legislation will be introduced in this Session to

ensure, as well, that this Act conforms with the Canadian Charter of Rights.

Shortly after I accepted the responsibilities of Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada in 1986, I stated to the Canadian Bar Association that the re-enactment of the Official Languages Act to ensure conformity with both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and the implementation of the rights of accused persons to be tried in their own official language under the Criminal Code would be matters of particular importance to me as Minister of Justice, and important elements in the advancement of the Government's policies of social justice and national reconciliation.

It took much of the next year for my colleagues, the President of the Treasury Board, the Secretary of State and I to complete the review and develop renewed policies and programs respecting the use of official languages not only within federal institutions but also within the larger Canadian

society. This endeavour required us to review, study and consult in order to ensure that the reforms the Government would be proposing would be balanced ones, reforms which would move official languages policy forward but which would be fair and just for all Canadians and which could be implemented in a reasonable, effective and practical manner.

This painstaking process of consultation and consensusbuilding did not end with the introduction of Bill C-72 in June of 1987. Despite the very positive reaction the Bill received from the opposition Parties, representatives of the official language minority communities, the Commissioner of Official Languages and major media across the nation, there were further consultations with the Commissioner, minority language organizations and Members of Parliament to pursue any further concerns that may have come up during the general reaction following the introduction of the Bill.

Information sessions were held with various bodies such as the Canadian Judicial Council and the Conference of Canadian Court Administrators. Much correspondence took place with members of the public and with officials of some provincial Governments as well as with a number of provincial Attorneys General.

Such consultations led to the coming into force of the language of trial provisions of the Criminal Code in Saskatchewan and with regard to summary conviction offences in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Discussions with the two territorial Governments continued and this resulted in the signing of the recent Canada-Yukon language agreement.

As I had stated before in this House, ours is a Government that believes in communication, consultation and co-operation. These virtues, I believe, are essential to foster understanding, acceptance and development of official languages policy in Canada.

Obviously we do have a complex Bill before us, but concerns and questions arise in any legislative initiative, and it has been our duty as legislators to address these and to resolve them. The principles of the Bill were approved by this House on second reading and it has been the firm resolve of the Government not to deviate from these principles. However, as I remarked on March 22 of this year during the opening statement to the legislative committee studying Bill C-72, we remained as a Government ready and willing to consider appropriate proposals for clarification and improvement.

During the next two months, a wide range of witnesses were heard and views were expressed and we heard the comments and questions of committee members. On May 25, having followed the committee's proceedings very closely, I indicated the type of amendments which commended themselves to the Government. The amendment proposals I presented to the legislative committee on behalf of the Government were, I believe, a fair and balanced package that maintained our clear commitment to the underlying philosophy and principles of this legislation.

July 7, 1988

Several further amendments and adjustments put forward by committee members and the Commissioner of Official Languages were also accepted by the Government as part of our continued willingness to consider reasonable suggestions to clarify specific points without in any way deviating from the true character of this Bill.

Through the useful work of the legislative committee the consensus of understanding and support for this important measure has been broadened. As amended and reported by the committee, Bill C-72 has been improved and enhanced in a number of major respects, and I commend members of the committee for their hard work and patience. It was a very effective co-operative effort and a great credit to Members on both sides.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Hnatyshyn:

At this point I would like to briefly review the major provisions of this important initiative. The Bill commences with a preamble that recalls the fundamental constitutional and policy principles which have guided development of this legislation.

The Bill begins by recognizing that the Constitution of Canada provides for equality of status and equal rights and privileges for the two official languages as to their use in all federal institutions, a principle which is entrenched in our Constitution in Section 16 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This includes their use as languages of work in those institutions.

The Constitution also provides, in Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Charter and in Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, for full and equal access to Parliament, to the laws and to the courts of Canada as established by Parliament, in English and in French. Section 20 of the Charter guarantees the right of members of the public to communicate with and to receive available services from federal institutions.

The Charter contains other constitutional provisions of importance to this legislation: protection of the educational rights of the English and French linguistic minorities; advancement of the status and use of both official languages, recognition of the rights associated with the preservation and enhancement of other languages. "I would suggest that it might be possible to devise a preamble to the Bill which would have that effect". That was a statement made by the Hon. Robert Stanfield in 1969. All of these principles and more are recognized by the preamble.

Moreover, the new legislation contains a purpose clause which states that the aim of the Act is to ensure respect for the equality of status enjoyed by the two languages in all federal institutions; to support the development of the English and French linguistic minority communities, which the preamble recognizes as being "an integral part" of our two official language communities, and advance both languages generally

Official Languages Act

in Canadian society, and to set out the roles and responsibilities of federal institutions in official languages matters.

Parts 1 to 111 of the Bill flow from Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. These parts deal with proceedings in Parliament, legislative and other government documents, and the administration of justice in federal tribunals. They are inspired by the principle that all Canadians must have full and equal access in both our official languages to Parliament, in its legislative and other proceedings, and to the federal courts, in the administration of justice.

If there is one part of the Bill that most clearly reflects the Government's desire to make substantive, effective improvements in the existing mechanisms, it is the part that concerns the administration of justice. Sections 14 to 20 guarantee unrestricted use of French and English in Canada's courts.

This means that any Canadian will have the right to speak his own language in any federal court of law or administrative tribunal. Is it too much to ask that, for the sake of equity, these federal institutions render justice to Canadians in their own language? To ask the question is to answer it. I do not think it is too much to ask of them, especially since we have ascertained that it is feasible right now. We will not have to interfere in any way with the internal management of the courts to have them implement this policy.

Under the new Act, federal courts composed of unilingual anglophone and francophone judges and bilingual judges will have no trouble administering their affairs. We have taken care to ensure due respect for a democratic value we consider paramount-the independence of the justice system.

As Minister responsible for Bill C-72, I am proud to put such measures before the Canadian people on behalf of the Government, and it is my personal conviction that no one will ever criticize us for having worked for greater equity in the administration of justice in Canada.

Part IV deals with the constitutional right of any member of the public to communicate with and receive services from federal institutions in either official language. As under the 1969 Act, the new legislation creates duties on federal institutions to ensure that the right is respected at the head or central offices of those institutions, and at their offices in the National Capital Region. The 1969 Act further provided for the creation of federal bilingual districts where the minority numbered 10 per cent of the population. It stipulated that outside the proposed bilingual districts, services to the public would also be provided in both languages, to the extent feasible, in other locations where there was a significant demand. Bilingual districts were never proclaimed because the concept proved unworkable. For example, certain regional offices would serve minority language populations where located outside the bilingual districts themselves.

July 7, 1988

Official Languages Act

With the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the bilingual districts notion was dropped. We believe that such a geographical constraint on the language rights of Canadians is constitutionally suspect. Such a fixed criterion is inherently arbitrary and incompatible with the administrative flexibility that is necessary to make the constitutional language rights a practical, workable and living reality in the relationships between Canadians and the federal institutions that exist to serve them. Amendments to the Bill that would restore this geographical and numerical flexibility are equally dubious, as a matter of constitutional conformity.

Indeed, Section 20 of the Charter guarantees the right of members of the public to services in either language from federal offices where there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language, or where due to the nature of that office itself, it is reasonable that communications and services from that office be available in both English and French. These criteria epitomize the need for flexibility, and I would like to review them in somewhat more detail to lay to rest misconceptions and misrepresentations about this part of the Bill.

The "demand" test of Section 20 of the Charter is first and foremost a quantitative one, while the "nature of the office" component is essentially a qualitative one, going to the intrinsic qualities of the office, irrespective of demand. However, this is not to say that there can be no qualitative aspects to the significance of the demand, or that the quantitative aspect is strictly numerical. If the drafters of the Charter wanted to cast the demand criterion of Section 20 exclusively in numerical terms, they could have easily done so in the language of Section 23, which provides for minority language education "where numbers warrant".

Indeed, the original October 1980 version of Section 20 provided for services in both languages from federal offices located in areas in which it would be determined that a substantial number of persons within the population used that language, but this formulation was criticized at the time and replaced by the notion of "significant demand".

In any event, even a "where numbers warrant" test cannot be met, the courts have told us, by the strict imposition of an immutable or geographical limitation in legislation. There must be some flexibility of application. To fix, without any justification, an arbitrary figure would, as I have indicated, demonstrably risk violating the provisions of the Charter.

In Bill C-72 we have outlined a variety of quantitative factors, including numerical ones, that the Governor in Council may have regard to in prescribing by regulation circumstances in which there is significant demand. I want to bring these to the attention of the House. They include the number of persons in the English or French linguistic minority population in the area served by the office, the proportion of

the minority population to the total population of the areas served by the office, and the volume of communications or services between the office and members of the public using each language.

We have also insured that the Governor in Council will have the flexibility to take into account any other factors that the Governor in Council considers appropriate as well as the particular characteristics of the linguistic minority population.

This latter qualitative factor implies that in some cases the special needs and conditions of a minority language community may result in the demand being considered significant enough to justify the provision of bilingual services even where a purely numerical criteria might suggest otherwise. This is consonant with our commitment to supporting the development of vital minority communities expressed elsewhere in this legislation, and with our commitment to Canada's linguistic duality in the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord.

I would like to turn now to the important area of language of work. Section 16 of the Charter guarantees that the official languages have "equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada". These constitutional rights are stated very broadly. There is no doubt, in my view, that they include equal status, rights, and privileges in respect of the use of these languages in the work environments of federal institutions. The entitlements flowing from Section 16 are not qualified by Section 20's tests of "significant demand" at federal offices or the nature of the office.

It was thus incumbent on the Government to develop a legislative scheme which would respect the principle of equality of status of the two languages in federal institutions in a way that would reflect the reality of the country and which would be implemented without enormous administrative difficulty.

The guarantees of the Charter are subject, by virtue of Section 1, only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. If the language-of-work entitlement were expressed exclusively as an individual right, major problems in implementation would have resulted. Consequently, the right is shaped and conditioned in a reasonable, workable and, above all, fair manner by the corresponding duties which are imposed on federal institutions by Part V of the Bill.

Part V recognizes, in Clause 34, that "English and French are the languages of work in all federal institutions, and officers and employees ... have the right to use either official language in accordance with this Part". Clause 35 then provides that in the National Capital Region and other prescribed regions work environments of federal institutions are to be "conducive to the effective use of both official languages and accommodate the use of either official language by its officers and employees".

July 7, 1988

Clause 35 goes on to provide that in those regions of Canada which are not so prescribed the treatment of both languages in the work environments of the institutions in regions where one official language predominates is reasonably comparable to the treatment of both languages in regions where the other official language predominates.

The prescribed language-of-work regions are those which have been recognized for the purposes by Treasury Board policy since 1977. In these regions federal institutions must ensure that personnel and central services and regularly and widely used work instruments and, after 1991, newly acquired data processing systems, are available to employees in both languages; that where it is appropriate or necessary in order to create a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages supervisors are able to communicate with their employees in both official languages; and that corporate management groups have a functionally bilingual capacity.

These are institutional duties, not individual obligations. It is not, I emphasize, an individual requirement imposed on each supervisory position in the Public Service of Canada, as has been erroneously suggested by some.

Outside the prescribed language-of-work regions the right to use either official language will be more limited because the obligations on federal institutions are less onerous, but this does not mean that there will be no opportunities to use the other language or that there will be no services to government employees or work instruments, for example, that will be made available through the system in both languages. The Governor in Council may make regulations in this regard and may prescribe the manner in which any of the duties of this Part are carried out.

If fairness and flexibility in the application of the language-of-work and services to the public duties are to be maintained, regulations will be necessary. However, the Government has been sensitive and responsive to the concerns of Members of this House by ensuring that the Bill provides appropriate mechanisms for parliamentary oversight and review. One defect in the 1969 official languages legislation raised by the Hon. Robert Stanfield was that it provides inadequate opportunities for Parliament to examine and criticize the manner in which the Bill is administered and the practices adopted under it.

Up until now Treasury Board has had responsibility for the development and administration of government policy in this area with very little direct accountability to Parliament. Henceforth, under the new legislation, Treasury Board's powers and responsibilities are clearly set out. The President of the Treasury Board will make an annual report to Parliament on the programs relating to official languages in respect of which it has responsibility.

The Commissioner of Official Languages may initiate a review of any regulations or directives on official languages and make a report to Parliament. Consultations with minorities and the members of the public will be held on proposed regulations, and all regulations made under the Bill will now be made by the Governor in Council and not by Treasury Board.

Official Languages Act

A draft of proposed regulations must be tabled in the House at least 30 sitting days before prepublication. Regulations shall be prepublished in the Canada Gazette at least 30 days before coming into force, and a reasonable opportunity will be given to interested persons to make representations to the President of the Treasury Board.

Where a regulation is proposed that would add to or delete from the list of prescribed language-of-work regions, it must be laid before each House of Parliament and a motion to disapprove the proposed regulation may be put forward by Members of Parliament.

Finally, the administration of the Act, any regulations or directives made thereunder, and the reports of the Commissioner, the President of the Treasury Board, and the Secretary of State shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by the parliamentary committee.

These measures are consistent with the reform of the regulatory process undertaken by this Government and our philosophy of openness, accessibility and accountability. This was the result of the work of the committee. It was this accountability to Members of Parliament and the co-operation demonstrated through the committee that allowed us to make these amendments to enhance, strengthen and make more open the whole process, which I think is a distinct improvement to the legislation. Again, I commend members of the committee for their help.

The Bill restates a goal that has long been part of the Government's official languages policy: full participation in federal institutions by all Canadians, be they English-speaking or French-speaking, regardless of mother tongue or ethnic origin. It is a goal, not an executory duty.

We made a commitment that federal institutions would be staffed with anglophones and francophones in the same proportions as the national population, with due regard for the nature of each institution.

Far from making irrational commitments, we opted for a policy that was acceptable in that it provided equal employment opportunities for all Canadians, without discriminating against English-speaking Canadians or in favour of Frenchspeaking Canadians, that is, in a completely equitable manner. [English]

If we consider that 88 per cent of all bilingual federal Public Service positions are held within the National Capital area and the Province of Quebec and that 96 per cent of all unilingual French positions are held in Quebec, Hon. Members will quickly realize that there is no basis to the rumours that Francophones are somehow taking over the federal Public Service. In the Province of British Columbia, for example, 99 per cent of the positions are unilingual English, in Alberta it is 98 per cent, in Saskatchewan 97 per cent, in Manitoba 94 per cent and in Ontario 92 per cent. There is no reason to believe that these figures would change unless the make-up of the population in these regions changed substantially.

July 7, 1988

Official Languages Act

These statistics clearly demonstrate how realistic this policy is. Never has the Government supported the imposition of quotas which negatively impact on either Francophones or Anglophones. We have never supported the implementation of language programs which discriminate. The reality is quite the contrary. The official languages policy outlined in this Bill has always promoted and defended the concept of merit. This is a concept that will continue.

Mr. Speaker, the Charter provides that anyone whose linguistic rights have been infringed may apply to a court to obtain such remedy as the court considers just in the circumstances. For the Official Languages Act to be effective, we had to give it executory force. That does not mean that every language dispute will henceforth be referred automatically to a court. Rather, the new Act provides a mediation mechanism with which the Commissioner of Official Languages will be associated by virtue of this role as an ombudsman and the expertise he has acquired over the years.

For that reason, the bill requires that persons intending to file a complaint approach the Commissioner first. Fie will be responsible for investigating complaints.

It is only as a last resort that the person goes to court. We have thus rectified the shortcomings of the 1969 Act for cases where Canadians have a legitimate grievance. The Commissioner of Official Languages will shift out the frivolous suits from the serious ones. His participation will be the pledge that suits will be based on the principles of law. Of course, the Commissioner will have to act in accordance with the Law, and if he exceeds his competence and finds himself outside the limits of his jurisdiction, he could be the subject of the usual administrative proceedings, on the grounds that he had infringed the rules of fundamental justice.

In closing, let me say a few words about Part VII of the Bill on the advancement of English and French. I am pleased that my colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) is here. I hope he will be in a position to participate in the debate and expand on this matter.

The Supreme Court has stated that this constitutional principle of progress in language matters is particularly suited to advancement through the legislative process. Surely all Canadians can see the wisdom of supporting, through encouragement and co-operation, not coersion, the development of our official language minority communities and the recognition and use of both official languages in Canadian society as a whole. Surely all Canadians want their federal Government to encourage and support the learning of English and French, and to foster the acceptance and appreciation of our two official languages within the Canadian public. The recent language

agreements between the federal Government and the Governments of Saskatchewan, the Yukon and Prince Edward Island are witness to this consensus.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court put it eloquently in the Societe des Acadiens case, repeated most recently by a majority of the court in the seminal Mercure decision. He stated:

Linguistic duality has been a longstanding concern in our nation. Canada is a country with both French and English solidly embedded in its history. The constitutional language protections reflect continued and renewed efforts in the direction of bilingualism. In my view, we must take special care to be faithful to the spirit and purpose of the guarantee of language rights enshrined in the Charter.

On this occasion the Government is coming forward with legislation that is fair, equitable and which guarantees fairness to all parts of our country and all members of Canadian society. It is legislation that recognizes that equity and fairness are the cornerstone of this Government's approach to official languages. With the leadership of the Prime Minister on this very sensitive and important issue, Canada will develop as the progressive nation for which it is totally capable. We look forward to this legislation taking us into the next century. I urge the support of all Members.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister took the high road today. Indeed, it is an historic day and, for many of us, an important day because after several years of hard work and great experiences, we are coming to a moment when the House of Commons of this country is to approve a new law concerning official languages. It is a new law of this land designed to achieve national unity and unite Canada on the basis of the constitutional goal we set for ourselves, and to have a country where duality is respected and seen as a unifying objective rather than a divisive one.

I am particularly happy that we are dealing with this legislation at this time because I do not believe we have a linguistic crisis in Canada at this time.

Mr. Speaker, when my leader, the Right Honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), spoke during the debate in this House last February 9 on Bill C-72-and he was the only Party Leader who spoke in that debate, and I thank him for it-he said, and 1 quote,

One of the reasons why this Bill is acceptable to us and to a substantial majority of Canadians is that it is in our Party's tradition, which includes the 1969 Act, the experience we acquired from 1969 to 1984, the Parliamentary Resolution of 1973, the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Official Languages.

July 7, 1988

Mr. Speaker, it is true that this Bill is the fruit of the labours of many Canadians, under both this Government and previous Governments: civil servants, Commissioners of Official Languages, members of the language communities in this country, who almost always inspire us, give us ideas, and sometimes even push the politicians to act.

The coexistence of our two linguistic communities symbolizes our Canadian distinctiveness, this society of freedom and tolerance, justice and compassion that we all seek to build. The majority of Canadians accept our nation's duality and this brings greater respect for the rights of all other minorities. Two official languages, therefore, far from being divisive, are a guarantee of tolerance and understanding, because an open mind on language cannot but nurture generosity of understanding and support for other cultural and linguistic groups.

We have had here for several years-at least since I have been here, since 1972- a policy of multiculturalism. I have said it before, if people cannot accept two official languages in this country, they can hardly understand and accept the multicultural nature of Canada and the important policies that have been adopted to support and strengthen and promote our cultural diversity.

Here again we are faced with our large geographic expanse, a large territory, and our regional differences and, admittedly, our differing perspectives. I am confident that we in this country, are beginning to see the importance of looking beyond our local and regional boundaries, to look for the differences; not to criticize them, not to destroy them, not to eliminate them, but to support them, to promote them and thus enrich each other and make this a better country for all of us.

It is the Liberal Party's position that this is a good Bill. It is the Liberal Party's position that we will support and defend across this country the principles of this Bill. We pray for understanding across the country and for the Bill's implementation in a generous, open and, hopefully, quick way.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Gauthier:

I say that because the regulations that will flow from this Bill will be subject to parliamentary review, in the committee on regulatory review, and it is very important that the Bill be applied in a generous, open manner.

We must not be mean about this, we must not be petty, the regulations and the whole application must be generous. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, it will be a beautiful Charter but it will have neither teeth nor impact.

The problem is quite simple: how do we ensure equality between anglophones and francophones despite their unequal distribution on Canadian territory? That is a question our predecessors in government and our forebears have alerady tried to answer, beginning with the Fathers of Confederation in 1867. Since then every generation has had to adopt, modernize, modify and let us say reinforce where necessary the laws and regulations regarding official languages, in order to

Official Languages Act

adapt them to a sociological reality that itself is constantly changing.

In this search for legislative perfection, perhaps impossible to achieve but still a valid goal, there are two dimensions: the national dimension-Canada as a whole; and the regional dimension-our cities and towns, our communities, our regions and provinces. At the national level, legislation and regulations must be brought in that ensure members of the two main language communities equivalent rights, neither more nor less, so that they can feel at home in their country, at least at the institutional level. That is the role that the federal government must try to play, that is the goal of Bill C-72: to create an atmosphere of generosity toward all Canadians who need to deal with federal institutions for service and communication in the language of their choice and not in the language of the institution, which as we know can vary from region to region.

At the regional and local level, what is at stake is not quite the same. Naturally, that equality of rights and privileges that have been granted remains constant no matter what the region. But a new dimension must be added, that of minorities, individuals situated in a cultural and social environment dominated by the other group. Whether it is the anglophones in Quebec among the francophone majority, or the francophones outside Quebec who live among or in surrondings that are largely anglophone, they experience situations that are, if not the same, at least comparable. The result is that at the national level we have to pay particular attention to the unique situations in our cities and towns and in the provinces. We have always done so in the past, and we will continue to do so. It is one of the characteristic things about Canada, and I for one am proud of it.

It was in fact partly because of our geography, and the distribution of our population over so vast a territory, that we opted for a federal system in the first place. It follows that we must endow ourselves with the necessary constitutional provisions that will unite all the different pieces into one mosaic.

That is the origin of the interplay of the national and regional dimensions to which I referred earlier. The broad goals are set at the national level. But each province has specific responsibilities through which the national goals are achieved-health services, education, social services, domestic trade, the administration of justice, the obligation to make rules for the professions and for municipal and regional governments. All those sectors are, according to the Constitution, matters for provincial jurisdiction. In all those sectors, the federal government has no jurisdiction, and in none of them will Bill C-72 have any direct effect. And yet, the provinces have an important role. It is the provinces that will have to establish within their borders the language regime best suited both to national objectives and to the particular needs of their provincial populations. That is why Canada's linguistic mosaic is so diverse.

July 7, 1988

Official Languages Act

Quebec has its own language legislation, which reflects its unique linguistic and cultural situation. Alberta and Saskatchewan have also adopted language legislation, more or less forceful, more or less acceptable, but which reflects their realities; so have Ontario, my own province, and New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada, a status enshrined in the Constitution. In each case, Mr. Speaker, we see different solutions, all possible answers to the question I asked at the start of my speech. What is Canada?

Today, Mr. Speaker, we are preparing to give Canada a new bench-mark, a new milestone in the area of language legislation. This afternoon the House of Commons is going to adopt Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada. It is a proud day for me. I worked on this Bill, with the Hon. Member from Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), and I hail it. I am perhaps not 100 per cent satisfied with it, neither is my colleague, but I think it represents an enhancement, if I can put it like that. We tried to keep as much as possible the heart of the Bill, and I think that in general... 1 will return, later on in my remarks, to the improvements I would like to see in this legislation, which will probably be the subject of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of official languages is not new. It is as old as Canada. It goes back to the British North America Act, notably section 133. That section stipulates that either English or French may be used before the courts of Canada and Quebec but that both languages shall be used in the "respective Records and Journals" of the Houses of Parliament. There was something that responded to a requirement of the time. So linguistic duality goes back to the birth of this country. And even if they were not recognized as "official" languages, both English and French could rightfully be used in Parliament and before the federal courts, from the very beginning.

The protection, or regulation, of the status of French and English was ensured by a series of Acts and administrative measures both federally and provincially. This continued right up to 1963, when the federal Government created the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, with a view, as the Commission's mandate put it so well, and I quote: "To recommend what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian Confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races, taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada."

Mr. Speaker, I don't need to tell you that Andre Lauren-deau and Davidson Dunton were two very brave men in their day and generation. They toured the country with their team to hear Canadians' complaints, comments and recommendations, and in a preliminary report from the B and B Commission appears this sentence of Mr. Laurendeau's about the Commissioners, and I quote: "[They have been forced to conclude that] Canada, without being fully conscious of the fact, is passing through the greatest crisis in its history." That

was in 1963. Something had to be done. And Mr. Pearson, the Liberal Prime Minister of the day, did it. It was a turning point for official languages, which was to lead us to the proclamation of the Official Languages Act in 1969, then to the constitutional recognition of official languages in the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that went with it, and finally to the Meech-Langevin Accord, which recognized our linguistic duality as one of Canada's fundamental characteristics. So we have a process, a series of important and historic events.

I would like to point out to the Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, that the impetus given to the cause of official languages in 1962-63 and after, right up to 1984, was given by Canadians, Liberals, Mr. Pearson and Mr. Trudeau, and I take off my hat to them, because they did what had to be done at the time with courage and with great personal satisfaction.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Gauthier:

Moreover it was the Pearson government, Mr Speaker, in 1964, that authorized the Civil Service Commission, as it was known then, to set up a language bureau and to offer, for the first time, language training; and it was Mr Pearson himself who called for the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, and saw that this generous and open new approach to official languages was implemented. In response to the B and B Commission's recommendations in 1969, the federal Government, with all-Party support, passed the Official Languages Act, which gave English and French equal rights and privileges as languages of Parliament and languages of Canada. The culmination came in 1982, when the official status of English and French was made part of the Constitution, and language rights enshrined in sections 16 to 20 of the Charter of Rights, as we all know. There is also section 23, the right to minority-language education, which is also a very important provision but which is not what we are looking at today.

Starting from the moment when sections 16 to 20 were added to the Constitution, language rights were protected by laws and regulations passed by both the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures, and it could then be said that Canada had a true language charter.

Mr. Speaker, if I have begun with a look back at our history, it is because I think it is essential to have a historical perspective on the problems relating to official languages if we really want to understand what is at stake. As we have just seen, the Constitution takes priority over ordinary laws and the 1982 Charter represents an invaluable asset, because it puts language rights out of the reach of the political arm. That was one of the things that brought me into politics. I wanted language rights to be in the Constitution, to be safe from the interference of politicians, who change from time to time-a merciful dispensation of Providence, perhaps-and who ought to be bound, by an important document called a Constitution, to respect the will of the people.

July 7, 1988

The question of official languages needs more than political will, as history shows us. It also requires that dynamic administrative measures be put in place to ensure that the political will is translated into action. Nevertheless, a strong political will is essential, because it must be there to generate the dynamism, to inspire the renewal. It was in that spirit that in 1979 a political will created the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages.

Since 1979, the Joint Committee has met many times to consider both the Act and the regulations, and to oversee the implementation of the Act and report on it to Parliament at regular intervals. That is what we have done.

The Committee has tabled a number of reports, and they have been taken seriously by this assembly and by the various governments. I am happy to say that I have been a member of the Committee since it was created, and I even chaired it for several years with Senator Lowell Murray, whom everyone knows, and who is, I should add, a Minister in the present Government. We worked hard and I want to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate all those who collaborated and worked with us, not only the MPs and Senators but also the research staff and the Clerks in particular.

Mr. Speaker, it was political will to change and revitalize that also led to the creation in 1982 of a Special Committee of Deputy Ministers and experts. The Prime Minister at that time, the Right Honourable Pierre Elliot Trudeau, after reading the Joint Committee's reports and realizing that the Official Languages Act had to be updated and made to reflect the new Charter of Rights passed by Parliament in 1982, decided to create a Special Committee of Deputy Ministers and experts in this field, who toiled away under the aegis of the Privy Council on the task of renewing, strengthening and updating the Act. They studied the issue for some years, and when the present Government came to power in 1984, they had a thoroughly well-documented file that only needed to be recast as a piece of legislation. This the Government has done, and I congratulate it.

So there we had the political will, and by a joint effort of various committees and other people who took a hand, Bill C-72 was born. Bill C-72 thus follows up the Accord, the constitutional commitment, and acknowledges the formal commitments of the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord. It goes a little further than the Accord, because we were able to get the word "promotion" into the text, the wording of the Bill, which as you know we were, alas, not able to do in the case of the Accord.

Bill C-72 is thus in the same vein as the constitutional commitments. It defines federal objectives within the framework of a revitalized and modernized Act. It seems to us-to us Liberals, at any rate-that it was imperative to give the Bill (which was tabled in the House on June 25, 1987) prompt and serious consideration.

Official Languages Act

We had been waiting for the Bill for a long time, since it had been announced in two Throne Speeches, but the Government dawdled, the Bill didn't appear. I was obliged to raise the matter in the House on 27 separate occasions, in an attempt to encourage, to stir up interest-I may have overdone it a little, sometimes, but my goal was always to get the Government to take action, to keep its promises and bring a Bill before the House.

Finally, as I said, the Bill saw the light of day. It took nine months, and in February of this year, after a very long delay, we got to second reading. We drew the media's attention to the Bill and then things began to get interesting, because then people began to realize that this Bill was a significant Bill, which went much further than the 1969 Act.

Bill C-72 was supported by three Ministers, the Minister for the Treasury Board, the Minister of Justice, and the former Secretary of State, who gave a press conference where no words got minced. It was a fantastic moment, June 25, to see the government so enthusiastic. But it didn't last long. We had to keep up the pressure and encourage a hesitant government. We wondered why. And then we found out: there was a war going on. There was a war going on between certain Conservative Members. There was a group of about 30 of them, the dinosaur club I called them, which some people didn't like, but I thought it was an appropriate name.

They were carrying on an internal guerilla war against the Bill, in an effort to make people believe there was a crisis in the country. Well, there wasn't any crisis. Not a hint of one. And when my Leader, the Right Honorable John Turner, spoke on February 8, 1988, he said,

"The time is right, the subject is right, the content is right. In other words, why do we have to wait for a crisis, Mr. Speaker, let us act now".

And he was right. There was no crisis. There were some people trying to create one. The Government had to be encouraged to resist the preposterous pressure being put on it by some of its own MPs.

In committee, finally, after three days of debate in the House, there was a succesion of MPs playing at musical chairs. That went on for three months. They replaced one another almost like clockwork, the Tories, one saying his little piece and then the next day another one. We bore with them. One even suggested we hear from 130 witnesses, and 130 witnesses, Mr. Chairman, would have meant the Committee would have had to sit for the whole year, probably, and into next year. We said no. It was time for action. And at the end of three months-and I must say it took patience, you have to be patient in the game of politics-

Always!

July 7, 1988

Official Languages Act

Mr. Gauthier:

. . . and we came out with a report that was tabled in the Elouse. At that point, we realized that the Government was beginning to show a little courage. Suggestions had to be made to the Government, of course, but that can happen. Last Thursday, my colleague from St-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) rose in the House and proposed that since certain people wanted to create a crisis where there was none, the Government should use Standing Order 115 and move forward. We did not tell the Government to make it one day, one short day, and two hours; we simply told the Government we would support it if it decided to use Standing Order 115 to limit debate. The Government subsequently decided to put a very tight rein on the debate, but that was not our decision. We merely tried to get the Government to act.

Yesterday evening, Mr. Speaker, this House approved the Committee report as tabled in the House. It contained 136 amendements, but even though I personally might have been willing to spend all night here, some of my colleagues did not relish the prospect, and we voted. We decided not only to act responsibly but also to consider all the staff of the House who had to wait. It was chiefly for their sake that I suggested to my House leader that we could apply the result of one vote to the other votes and dispense with the recorded votes. It took time, but it was worth it, Mr. Speaker. After 20 years of waiting, getting concurrence in the report stage of a new Act was important, at least for me. However, for some Conservative Members who, as I say, still had doubts about the principle of linguistic duality it may not have been a very pleasant experience. For us, it was the fruit of years of unremitting hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I will not go on at length about the amendments considered yesterday. They might receive more recognition than they deserve. Happily, I think we have passed that difficult stage, and we can put them aside. Nevertheless, we have seldom seen a Government forced to gag its own Members . . .

No, I think it is the first time.