Special Feature: The 25^th anniversary of the Charter

Bilingualism in Parliament: The Effect of the Charter on the Use of Both Official Languages

by Peter Murphy

The 25^th anniversary of the Charter, which was celebrated earlier this year, makes it a fitting time to reflect on the effect this important legal text has had on the lives of Canadians. As the most evident symbol of Canadian democracy and one of our country’s most important institutions, Parliament not only sets the example for all Canadians, but at the same time is also representative of the country and its fundamental values. Several parliamentarians were therefore asked to share their experiences about the coming into effect of the Charter and what difference it has made on the use of both official languages in Parliament today.

As former commissioner of official languages M.F. Yalden pointed out in an appearance before the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada, language has always been a matter of utmost importance and concern in our country. Our collective history is rooted in the use of both English and French. According to the Honourable Mauril Bélanger, Member of Parliament since 1995 and former minister responsible for official languages, this linguistic duality is at “the core of Canadian identity and Canadian unity.”

The framers of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognized the importance of these two languages by including section 133, which set out the constitutional guarantees of the use of French and English in the Canadian Parliament. The importance of this parliamentary bilingualism stems from the recognition of Parliament as the representative, both domestically and internationally, of the country and its people as a whole.

The entrenchment of language rights in the Charter

The language rights contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms furthered the bilingual nature of Parliament. Of the seven sections under the heading “Official Languages of Canada,” three deal specifically with the use of English and French in Parliament. Subsection 16(1), for example, states that English and French are the official languages of Canada, and while this status had been granted before, in the first official languages act of 1969 among others, it was not until the Charter that it benefited from constitutional protection. The rights found in sections 17 and 18 also existed before the Charter, for example in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and had been recognized by the courts on several occasions; however, these rights were added to and extended in the Charter, thereby providing them with much stronger constitutional protection than they had had before.

The importance of the entrenchment of these rights in the Charter cannot be downplayed. In addition to recognizing their importance, their inclusion also ensures they receive the highest level of protection that can be afforded—they are now exempt from the notwithstanding clause and the provincial and federal governments must reach unanimous agreement before they can be changed. This “double entrenchment” ensures that the bilingual nature of Parliament is now a permanent part of the Canadian identity.

It can therefore be said that the Charter improved institutional bilingualism in two indirect ways: through the constitutionalization of the language rights found in the Official Languages Act, 1969 (and its own unique additions), and through its influence on the subsequent strengthening and passage of a new official languages act in 1988, which was updated to reflect the rights guaranteed in the Charter.

A new official languages act

The signing of the Charter in 1982 led to a major overhaul of language legislation, culminating with the Official Languages Act, 1988. This act sets forth for the first time, in subsection 4(2), the provision of facilities for simultaneous interpretation services, even though these services had existed since 1959, and the obligation, in section 6, to enact the acts of Parliament in both official languages.

The advancement of bilingualism in Parliament

While it is now clear that Parliament is officially obligated to be bilingual, have these rights advanced bilingualism in Parliament or, as in the mind of Senator Lowell Murray, have they served to “reinforce what was there already in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Official Languages Act of 1969”?¹

For Senator Murray, who first began working with the Senate in 1961 and was appointed to that house in 1979, the most important steps taken towards the creation of a bilingual Parliament were the introduction of simultaneous interpretation in 1959 and the passage of the Official Languages Act in 1969. After the introduction of simultaneous interpretation, for example, the amount of French spoken in Throne and debate speeches rose to just over 20%, from under 5%, in only four years.²

According to Senator Murray, the Charter has “had an indirect impact on making the houses and members of Parliament more bilingual by making the whole apparatus bilingual,” and this impact is largely a result of the Official Languages Act.

In fact, all the parliamentarians interviewed for this article believe there is a great amount of respect amongst the members for linguistic duality. According to Louis Plamondon, the second-longest serving current member of Parliament, this increase in respect has led to an expansion of the services provided in both official languages in Parliament.

For Mr. Plamondon, this includes a greater effort on the part of parliamentarians to ensure that members in positions of authority, such as committee presidents or meeting chairpersons, are competent in both languages. It also includes the extension of translation and interpretation services, which are automatic in House debates and standing committees, to less formal gatherings involving members of all parties, such as committee head meetings and private receptions. The fact that these services are being provided during the less formal parliamentary activities, more and more often without members having to ask for them, is a sure sign of an increased respect for the principles of institutional bilingualism amongst parliamentarians across party lines.

Steven Blaney, Member of Parliament since 2006, was surprised to discover that parliamentary bilingualism was not limited to respecting legal obligations and instead has been integrated into members’ daily work. As a result, both English and French are alive and well on Parliament Hill. Mr. Blaney also noted that many parliamentarians not only are working on perfecting their skills in the other official language, but also want to learn more about the other culture.

Not all is coming up roses

While there is a great amount of respect for both official languages in Parliament, to conclude that all is coming up roses would be to ignore the costs associated with the indirect effect the Charter has had on the language rights of MPs and the obligations of Parliament. One such cost is quite literally just that, the cost. According to the Honourable William Blaikie, the longest continuous serving member of Parliament, the biggest difficulty is sometimes the unavailability of documents in both languages, in particular documents from outside the government. The simple cost of translating is sometimes used as a reason for this unavailability.

Time is another cost of a bilingual Parliament. Parliamentary policy dictates that written submissions to parliamentary committees must be available in both official languages before they are distributed to committee members, although exceptions can be made with a unanimous vote by the committee in question. However, as Mr. Blaikie pointed out, members are reluctant to use this derogation for fear of creating a precedent for future committees—a slippery slope best avoided. A general respect for the principles of parliamentary bilingualism plays a part in members’ unwillingness to accept documents that are available in only one language. The end result is lost time while the committee waits for the translation of important documents. Depending on the issue at hand, this problem can range from slight annoyance to major legislative slowdowns.

Worthwhile benefits

All federal policies incur costs and require a certain amount of effort to carry out. In this case, as Mr. Blaney stated, the benefits of parliamentary bilingualism without question make up for these inconveniences. Parliamentary bilingualism is an important part of Canadian identity that we all benefit from, both as individuals and as a group.

Conclusion

It would be hard to argue that the Charter has had any direct impact on the practical use of both official languages in Parliament since, as already noted above, most of the rights enshrined in it already existed prior to the Constitution Act, 1982. What is undeniable though is the indirect effect the Charter has had on the creation of a new-found respect for language rights amongst the members of Parliament and its effect on acts, such as the Official Languages Act, under which Parliament operates on a daily basis.

---

Notes

¹An Act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, S.C. 1969.

² Hoffman, David and Ward, Norman, Bilingualism and Biculturalism in the Canadian House of Commons [Documents of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism: 3] (Ottawa: Queens Printer, 1966) p.6.