DOCSLIB.ORG

Brief by Professor François Larocque Research Chair In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brief by Professor François Larocque Research Chair In BRIEF BY PROFESSOR FRANÇOIS LAROCQUE RESEARCH CHAIR IN LANGUAGE RIGHTS UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA PRESENTED TO THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES AS PART OF ITS STUDY OF THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES REFORM PROPOSAL UNVEILED ON FEBRUARY 19, 2021, BY THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OFFICIAL LANGUAGES, ENGLISH AND FRENCH: TOWARDS A SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES IN CANADA MAY 31, 2021 Professor François Larocque Faculty of Law, Common Law Section University of Ottawa 57 Louis Pasteur Ottawa, ON K1J 6N5 Telephone: 613-562-5800, ext. 3283 Email: [email protected] 1. Thank you very much to the honourable members of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages (the “Committee”) for inviting me to testify and submit a brief as part of the study of the official languages reform proposal entitled French and English: Towards a Substantive Equality of Official Languages in Canada (“the reform proposal”). A) The reform proposal includes ambitious and essential measures 2. First, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages for her leadership and vision. It is, in my opinion, the most ambitious official languages reform proposal since the enactment of the Constitution Act, 1982 (“CA1982”)1 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”),2 which enshrined the main provisions of the Official Languages Act (“OLA”)3 of 1969 in the Canadian Constitution. The last reform of the OLA was in 1988 and it is past time to modernize it to adapt it to Canada’s linguistic realities and challenges in the 21st century. 3. The Charter and the OLA proclaim that “English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.”4 In reality, however, as reported by Statistics Canada,5 English is dominant everywhere, while French is declining, including in Quebec. 4. The reform proposal is based on two undeniable premises. First, despite proclamations in the Charter and the OLA, English and French are not on equal footing in Canada. Second, it is up to Parliament and the federal government to remedy the situation and to do more to promote and protect French and achieve substantive equality of the two official languages. 5. As the Supreme Court of Canada and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages explain, the standard of substantive equality requires consideration of the differences that exist between the situation of the majority and the linguistic minority and the different implementation of language rights.6 1 Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. 2 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the CA1982. 3 Official Languages Act, RSC 1970, c. 0-2, replaced in 1988 by RSC 1985, c. 31 (4th supp). 4 Charter, supra note 2, subsection 16(1); OLA, ibid, preamble. 5 Statistics Canada, The evolution of language populations in Canada, by mother tongue, from 1901 to 2016. 6 R. v. Beaulac, [1999] 1 SCR 768, at para 22; Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward Island, [2000] 1 SCR 3, at para 31; DesRoches v. Canada (Industry), [2009] 1 SCR 194, at para 31; Office of the Commissioner of Official 1 6. In other words, to achieve substantive equality between the official languages, French must be given a boost. To that end, the reform proposal includes over 50 legislative and administrative measures to support francophone communities and their institutions, to improve access to French immersion and, in general, to ensure that the federal government is more exemplary when it comes to official bilingualism. In my opinion, it is the right approach. 7. Overall, I find that the legislative and administrative measures put forward in the reform proposal are ambitious and essential. If they were to be implemented, they would all represent positive progress for the linguistic security of official language minority communities. However, the devil is always in the details and we must ensure that the next version of the OLA reflects the ambition and courage shown by the authors of the reform proposal. 8. I stand behind the comments, praise and concerns expressed by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada (FCFA) concerning the reform proposal. B) The reform proposal is incomplete, as it ignores the obligation to enact the French version of Canada’s constitutional texts as set out in section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982 9. However, the reform proposal is incomplete, as it ignores the obligation set out in section 55 of the CA1982 to enact the French version of Canada’s constitutional texts. 10. Many Canadians would be surprised to learn that most of Canada’s constitutional texts are not officially bilingual, including the Constitution Act, 1867. Although a French version of that fundamental document was prepared at the time of Confederation, it was never tabled in Parliament at Westminster. As a result, to this day, only the English version of the Constitution Act, 1867 has official status. The same is true for the other constitutional texts enacted in Westminster on behalf of Canada, including the Rupert’s Land and North-Western Territory Order (1870), the British Columbia Terms of Union (1871), the Statute of Westminster and the Newfoundland Act (1949). 11. Of the 31 texts declared in the CA1982 to be part of the “Constitution of Canada,” only nine have been enacted in both official languages, including the CA1982 itself and the Charter. The Manitoba Act Languages, Interpretation Bulletin, Substantive Equality of Official Languages. See also S. Friedman, Discrimination Law, Oxford: OUP. 2011. 2 (1870), the Alberta Act (1905) and the Saskatchewan Act (1905) have also been enacted in English and French. 12. To correct this incongruity, the authors of the CA1982 enacted section 55, which reads as follows: 55.(1) A French version of the portions of the 55.(1) Le ministre de la Justice du Canada est chargé Constitution of Canada referred to in the schedule de rédiger, dans les meilleurs délais, la version shall be prepared by the Minister of Justice of française des parties de la Constitution du Canada Canada as expeditiously as possible and, when qui figurent à l’annexe; toute partie suffisamment any portion thereof sufficient to warrant action importante est, dès qu’elle est prête, déposée pour being taken has been so prepared, it shall be put adoption par proclamation du gouverneur général forward for enactment by proclamation issued by sous le grand sceau du Canada, conformément à la the Governor General under the Great Seal of procédure applicable à l’époque à la modification des Canada pursuant to the procedure then applicable dispositions constitutionnelles qu’elle contient. to an amendment of the same provisions of the Constitution of Canada. 13. In 1984, to carry out this mandate, the Minister of Justice created the French Constitutional Drafting Committee. A total of twelve of the most distinguished and recognized jurists and jurilinguists in Canada worked on that Drafting Committee. Six years later, in December 1990, the Minister of Justice at the time, the Right Honourable Kim Campbell, tabled the Drafting Committee’s final report in the House of Commons. 14. The Drafting Committee produced French translations of exceptional quality. Unfortunately, apart from a failed attempt in 1990, no steps have been taken to enact them, as clearly required, however, by section 55 of the CA1982. As a result, to this day, only the English version of several parts of our written constitution have official status. 15. The time has come to complete the repatriation work and give Canada a truly Canadian and entirely bilingual Constitution. Section 55 of the CA1982 requires that the Minister of Justice draft a French version of the relevant constitutional texts “as expeditiously as possible.” That obligation on the Minister of Justice was respected through the remarkable work of the Drafting Committee. 16. However, section 55 also provides that “any portion thereof sufficient to warrant action being taken has been so prepared, it shall be put forward for enactment by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.” That crucial element of the constitutional mission of section 55 unfortunately remains unaccomplished.7 7 L. Cardinal and F. Larocque, La Constitution bilingue de Canada : un projet inachevé, Quebec City: PUL. 2017. 3 17. The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of the land. It is essential that its provisions be respected, as they express the greatest values and aspirations. The enactment of an entirely bilingual constitution is a constitutional obligation that reflects those values and aspirations. Respect for the rule of law and respect for French-speaking Canadians requires no less. The modernization of the OLA is the perfect opportunity to act on these strict obligations under section 55 and finally enact the French version of our constitutional texts. 18. The long road to achieving substantive equality begins first and foremost with minimal respect for formal equality, or parity. The enactment of the French version of Canada’s constitutional texts is a matter of formal equality and fundamental justice for French-speaking Canadians. It is also a matter of the rule of law. It is completely unacceptable that a mandatory provision of the Constitution of Canada – the country’s supreme law – has been blithely ignored for four decades! 19. This is why the Honourable Senator Serge Joyal, PC, OC, OQ (retired) and I launched proceedings before the Superior Court of Quebec on August 29, 2019, to demand that the Government of Canada respect the strict obligations under section 55 of the CA1982 and begin the necessary steps to enact the bilingual Constitution of Canada as soon as possible.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mcgill Paper
    Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Issue #80, August 19, 2008. © by CJEAP and the author(s). ONTARIO’S CHALLENGE: DENOMINATIONAL RIGHTS IN PUBLIC EDUCATION* Dawn Zinga Brock University Denominational rights in education have a long and controversial history within Canada. Ontario has struggled with denomination rights and continues to face the challenges posed by accommodating denominational rights. This paper examines those challenges and considers the future of denominational rights in Ontario, in light of John Tory‘s 2007 election campaign platform to extend funding to all faith-based schools or to none. It includes a consideration of the historical roots of denominational rights, their expression throughout Canada, the conflicts between denominational rights and the Charter, the media storm that surrounded the faith-based funding campaign, and proposed solutions to the question of denominational rights in Ontario. Introduction Denominational rights in education have been an issue of contention since the creation of Canada. The question of how education was to be established was one of the most difficult questions to address during the process of the formation of Canada (Brophy, 1894) and at the heart of the matter was the question of denominational rights (Bezeau, 2007). Denominational rights within education have continued to be contentious and have lead to some interesting developments within Canada. In particular, Ontario has struggled with the issue of denominational rights * I wish to thank Megan Davis and Angela Dziondziak for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. I also wish to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier version of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Terms of Office
    Terms of Office The Right Honourable Sir John Alexander Macdonald, 1 July 1867 - 5 November 1873, 17 October 1878 - 6 June 1891 The Right Honourable The Honourable Sir John A. Macdonald Alexander Mackenzie (1815-1891) (1822-1892) The Honourable Alexander Mackenzie, 7 November 1873 - 8 October 1878 The Honourable Sir John Joseph Caldwell Abbott, 16 June 1891 - 24 November 1892 The Right Honourable The Honourable The Right Honourable Sir John Joseph Sir John Sparrow Sir John Sparrow David Thompson, Caldwell Abbott David Thompson 5 December 1892 - 12 December 1894 (1821-1893) (1845-1894) The Honourable Sir Mackenzie Bowell, 21 December 1894 - 27 April 1896 The Right Honourable Sir Charles Tupper, 1 May 1896 - 8 July 1896 The Honourable The Right Honourable Sir Mackenzie Bowell Sir Charles Tupper The Right Honourable (1823-1917) (1821-1915) Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 11 July 1896 - 6 October 1911 The Right Honourable Sir Robert Laird Borden, 10 October 1911 - 10 July 1920 The Right Honourable The Right Honourable The Right Honourable Arthur Meighen, Sir Wilfrid Laurier Sir Robert Laird Borden (1841-1919) (1854-1937) 10 July 1920 - 29 December 1921, 29 June 1926 - 25 September 1926 The Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King, 29 December 1921 - 28 June 1926, 25 September 1926 - 7 August 1930, 23 October 1935 - 15 November 1948 The Right Honourable The Right Honourable The Right Honourable Arthur Meighen William Lyon Richard Bedford Bennett, (1874-1960) Mackenzie King (later Viscount), (1874-1950) 7 August 1930 - 23 October 1935 The Right Honourable Louis Stephen St. Laurent, 15 November 1948 - 21 June 1957 The Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker, The Right Honourable The Right Honourable 21 June 1957 - 22 April 1963 Richard Bedford Bennett Louis Stephen St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Parliament
    The Parliament is composed of 3 distinct elements,the Queen1 the Senate and the House of Representatives.2 These 3 elements together characterise the nation as being a constitutional monarchy, a parliamentary democracy and a federation. The Constitution vests in the Parliament the legislative power of the Common- wealth. The legislature is bicameral, which is the term commoniy used to indicate a Par- liament of 2 Houses. Although the Queen is nominally a constituent part of the Parliament the Consti- tution immediately provides that she appoint a Governor-General to be her representa- tive in the Commonwealth.3 The Queen's role is little more than titular as the legislative and executive powers and functions of the Head of State are vested in the Governor- General by virtue of the Constitution4, and by Letters Patent constituting the Office of Governor-General.5 However, while in Australia, the Sovereign has performed duties of the Governor-General in person6, and in the event of the Queen being present to open Parliament, references to the Governor-General in the relevant standing orders7 are to the extent necessary read as references to the Queen.s The Royal Style and Titles Act provides that the Queen shall be known in Australia and its Territories as: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.* There have been 19 Governors-General of Australia10 since the establishment of the Commonwealth, 6 of whom (including the last 4) have been Australian born. The Letters Patent, of 29 October 1900, constituting the office of Governor- General, 'constitute, order, and declare that there shall be a Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over' the Commonwealth.
    [Show full text]
  • Sir John A. Macdonald Vindicated, a Review of the Right Honourable
    ~D()4 81 \ .JOH.J. -v . • -\. ){.c\( -: .A.I.D VINDICATED A RRVIR\V OF The Right Honourable Sir Richard Cartwright's Reminiscences BY SIR JOSEPH POPF':.K.C.M.G. PRICE 250. THF. PUBLISHERS' ASSOCIATION OT" CANADA, LIMITED TORONTO ( RT. HO",. SlH HI CHAIW CART lVlU GH T REMINISCENCES By THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR RICHARD CARTWRIGHT, G.C.M.G., P.C. THIS book is not aptly named. By Reminiscences of a publi c man, is commonly understood a chat ty narration of past events - a recital of what happened during a stated period, and of th e narrator's share th erein. T he volume under considerat ion is rather an Apologia,-a justification of Sir Richard Cart wright's public career, accompanied by a denunciation of all who presumed to differ from him . Mu ch of it suggests the decrees of a Pontiff defining t hings to be believed und er pain of censure , and t his im­ pression is heightened by t he catechetical form in which the credenda are proclaim ed. This style, however, t hough at times irritating, is not without its compensations. It is always refreshing to find a man who is not afraid to give clear- cut expression of his views upon men and things, and t he pleasur e is enhanced when, as in t he present case, t hese views are presented in t he te rse and vigorous Saxon which Sir Richard knew so well how to employ. There"never is any doubt as to his meaning- no small advantage in th is age of quali­ fications and refinements.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSTITUTION-MAKING AS INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS a Case Study of the 1980 Canadian Constitutional Negotiations Adam D
    CONSTITUTION-MAKING AS INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS A Case Study of the 1980 Canadian Constitutional Negotiations Adam D. McDonald1, University of Waterloo The Constitution Act, 1982 is a document that profoundly changed the Canadian political landscape. It brought home the highest law of the land; it provided Canadians a mechanism to change their Constitution; it created a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, entrenched within the Constitution, out of the reach of one government. Perhaps its most important legacies, however, are the seemingly permanent isolation of Quebec and the primacy of place in Canadian history it gave Pierre Trudeau. This paper will examine the constitutional history of Canada with a view to determining what made the 1980 negotiating sessions successful when the sessions that led to both the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord were not. It is important, however, to note that the word “successful” is used in the sense that an agreement was reached. Unlike Meech and Charlottetown, the repatriated constitution did not have unanimity among the participants. The question that comes to mind is this: if the governments did not really agree in 1981, why was a Constitution ratified? More importantly, are there lessons that can be drawn from this agreement that can be applied to the failed accords of the Mulroney era? In order to complete this examination, the paper will be divided into two parts. In the first part, Canada’s constitutional story will be told. This is a necessary part of any examination of the constitutional negotiations, for without knowing what the players wanted historically, one cannot see what was changed by the 1980s.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ukrainian Weekly 1991, No.36
    www.ukrweekly.com^ Published by the Ukrainian National Association inc., a fraternal non-profit association! crainian Weeklї vol. LIX No. 36 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 8,1991 50 cents Ukraine's independence in forefront in the woke of independence of Canadian PM's Edmonton appearanceParliamen t of U kraine dissolves by Christopher Guly Ukraine will visit Canada later this month. A tentative schedule includes a Communist Party organizations EDMONTON - Emerging from an September 23 meeting with the prime August 30 meeting with six executive minister in Ottawa and a visit to To– by Chrystyna N. Lapychak After suffering one defeat after members of the Ukrainian Canadian ronto the following day. Kiev Press Bureau another, a visibly upset Oleksander Committee, Canadian Prime Minister The announcement followed a tele- Moroz, leader of the Communist majo– Brian Mulroney refused to grant imme– gram, sent by Mr. Kravchuk to Mr. KlEv - The Supreme Soviet of rity in the Supreme Soviet, announced diate diplomatic recognition to U– Mulroney, calling for Canada's imme– Ukraine convened its fourth session in on September 4 that the majority was kraine, choosing instead to wait for the diate recognition of Ukrainian Ukraine's capital city last week, its first officially dissolved within Parliament results of the December 1 referendum in sovereignty. as the Parliament of an independent because the CPU leadership had "be– that republic. The prime minister also agreed to democratic Ukrainian state. trayed" them. include Dr. Dmytro Cipywnyk, presi–
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Assembly of Manitoba
    ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on PRIVILEGES and ELECTIONS 31-32 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. Phi/ Eyler Constituency of River East VOL. XXXI No. 63 - 2:00 p.m., SATURDAY, 28 JANUARY, 1984. Printed by the Office of the 0.-ns Printer. Province of Allltliloba . MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name Constituency Party ADAM,Hon. A.R. (Pete) Ste. Rose NDP ANSTET� Hon. Andy Spnngfield NDP ASHTON, Steve Thompson NDP BANMAN,Robert (Bob) La Verendrye PC BLAKE,David R. (Dave) Minnedosa PC BROWN, Arnold Rhineland PC BUCKLASCHUK,Hon. John M. Gimli NDP CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. Brandon West IND CORRIN, Q.C., Brian Ellice NDP COWAN, Hon. Jay Churchill NDP DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent St. Boniface NDP DODICK,Doreen Riel NDP DOERN, Russell Elm wood NDP DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth Kildonan NDP DOWNEY, James E. Arthur PC DRIEDGER, Albert Emerson PC ENNS, Harry Lakeside PC EVANS,Hon. Leonard S. Brandon East NDP EYLER,Phil River East NDP FILMON, Gary Tu xedo PC FOX, Peter Concordia NDP GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) Swan River PC GRAHAM, Harry Virden PC HAMMOND, Gerrie Kirkfield Park PC HARAPIAK, Harry M. The Pas NDP HARPER, Elijah Rupertsland NDP HEMPHILL,Hon. Maureen Logan NDP HYDE, Lloyd Portage la Prairie PC JOHNSTON,J. Frank Sturgeon Creek PC KOSTYRA,Hon. Eugene Seven Oaks NDP KOVNATS, Abe Niakwa PC LECUYER,Hon. Gerard Radisson NDP LY ON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling Charleswood PC MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI St. James NDP MALINOWSKI,Donald M.
    [Show full text]
  • HT-EM Logos Stacked(4C)
    EXCLUSIVE POLITICAL COCOVERAGE:OVVEERARAGGE: NNEWS,REMEMBERING FEATURES, AND ANALYSISLYSISS INSIDEINNSSIDIDE ACCESS TO HILL TRANSPORTATION POLICY BRIEFING PP. 19-33 JEAN LAPIERRE P. 10 INFORMATION P. 14 CLIMBERS P.41 TWENTY-SEVENTH YEAR, NO. 1328 CANADA’S POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT NEWSWEEKLY MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2016 $5.00 NEWS SYRIAN REFUGEES NEWS NDP ‘Very, very Wernick planning to stick NDP policy few’ Syrian convention refugees came around PCO for a while, ‘one for the to Canada push on for ‘nimbleness and ages,’ many from refugee eager to vote camps: CBSA offi cial Bolduc agility’ in public service on Mulcair’s leadership BY ABBAS RANA “Very, very few” of the BY LAURA RYCKEWAERT thousands of Syrian refugees Privy Council who have come to Canada came Clerk Michael More than 1,500 NDP members from refugee camps and most had Wernick says will attend the party’s policy con- been living in rented apartments his current vention in Edmonton this week to in Syria’s neighbouring countries, priorities include help shape the NDP’s future. a senior CBSA offi cial told creating a public Many are eager to see a review Parliament in February. service that has vote on NDP Leader Tom Mulcair’s Conservatives are now accusing ‘nimbleness leadership and there’s much talk the federal government of convey- and agility’ so about the direction of the party and ing a false perception to Canadians it can meet its “soul,” after its crushing defeat that refugees were selected from the needs of a in the last federal election. refugee camps. But the government ‘busy, ambitious NDP analyst Ian Capstick says it has never said all Syrian government that said the event will be “one for the wants to do a lot ages.” Continued on page 35 in it’s mandate, but I think this Continued on page 34 would be true had we been NEWS SENATE dealing with a blue government NEWS PUBLIC SERVICE or an orange Sen.
    [Show full text]
  • Blue Banner, Is Published Two Times Per Year
    bbllue banner HAEL’S COLLEGE SC ST. MIC HOOL Volume 13 ~ Fall/Winter 2012 SPECIAL POLITICS ISSUE 16 Making Our Mark In Public Service 18 St. Mike’s and Party Politics 20 All Politics is Local lettersbb tol theu editore banner HAEL’S COLLEGE S ST. MIC CHOOL The St. Michael’s College School alumni magazine, Blue Banner, is published two times per year. It reflects the history, accomplishments and stories of graduates and its purpose is to promote collegiality, respect and Christian values under the direction of the Basilian Fathers. TABLE OF CONTENTS USEFUL WEBSITES PRESIDENT: Terence M. Sheridan ’89 Message from the President 4 St. Michael’s College School: www.stmichaelscollegeschool.com EDITOR: Gavin Davidson ’93 Message from the Alumni President 5 Blue Banner Online: www.mybluebanner.com CO-EDITOR: Michael De Pellegrin ’94 Letter from the Editor 6 Basilian Fathers: www.basilian.org CISAA (Varsity Athletic Schedule): www.cisaa.ca Tel: 416-653-3180 ext. 292 Fax: 416-653-8789 Letters to the Editor 7 Twitter: www.twitter.com/smcs1852 E-mail: [email protected] Alumni E-mail: [email protected] Open Letter to Alumni: Canada Publications Mail Agreement #40006997 One Mission, One Thousand Options 8 CONTACT DIRECTORY Welcoming the New Alumni Executive 9 CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Tel: 416-653-3180 ext. 292 Paul Forbes Retires After 36 Years and 29 Titles 10 Kimberley Bailey, Fr. Lawrence Hyginus ’00, Jillian Kaster, Pat Mancuso ’90, Richard McQuade, E-mail: [email protected] Rick Naranowicz ’73, Joe Younder ’56 A Major Renewal 12 Web: www.stmichaelscollegeschool.com • Admissions (ext. 195) Securing our Future by Giving Back 13 ALUMNI EXECUTIVE 2012-2015 • Advancement (ext.
    [Show full text]
  • Translating the Constitution Act, 1867
    TRANSLATING THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 A Legal-Historical Perspective by HUGO YVON DENIS CHOQUETTE A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Law in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada September 2009 Copyright © Hugo Yvon Denis Choquette, 2009 Abstract Twenty-seven years after the adoption of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Constitution of Canada is still not officially bilingual in its entirety. A new translation of the unilingual Eng- lish texts was presented to the federal government by the Minister of Justice nearly twenty years ago, in 1990. These new French versions are the fruits of the labour of the French Constitutional Drafting Committee, which had been entrusted by the Minister with the translation of the texts listed in the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982 which are official in English only. These versions were never formally adopted. Among these new translations is that of the founding text of the Canadian federation, the Constitution Act, 1867. A look at this translation shows that the Committee chose to de- part from the textual tradition represented by the previous French versions of this text. In- deed, the Committee largely privileged the drafting of a text with a modern, clear, and con- cise style over faithfulness to the previous translations or even to the source text. This translation choice has important consequences. The text produced by the Commit- tee is open to two criticisms which a greater respect for the prior versions could have avoided. First, the new French text cannot claim the historical legitimacy of the English text, given their all-too-dissimilar origins.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Obligation of Alberta to Publish Laws in French: R V Caron and Boutet
    Constitutional Obligation of Alberta to Publish Laws in French: R v Caron and Boutet Margaret Unsworth, QC* Th is paper outlines the decisions of the Courts the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11), in the cases of Gilles Caron and Pierre Boutet that the said Languages Act of Alberta, [Caron]1 as well as the basic arguments advanced to the extent that it abolishes or reduces by the parties at the Supreme Court of Canada. the linguistic rights that were in force in Th e central issue in the case is whether there is Alberta before its adoption, pursuant to a constitutional obligation on the Province of section 110 of the North-West Territories Alberta to publish its laws in French. Act, 1875, as amended, is incompatible with the Constitution of Canada and is Th is is not intended to be an exhaustive anal- inoperative. ysis of the myriad of issues that were argued by Mr. Caron and Mr. Boutet in defence of their 2. An order pursuant to subsection 24(1) traffi c tickets. Rather, the objective is to give an of the Charter that the charge against the overview of the essentials of each of the deci- accused, Gilles Caron, be struck out. sions and the basic arguments advanced. Th is paper will also not address the matter of funding 3. A declaration pursuant to section 52 at trial, an issue in this case which also went to that the Legislature of the Province of the Supreme Court of Canada.2 Alberta must adopt in French and have all Acts and Regulations of the Province of Alberta assented to beginning with Background those required by Gilles Caron for this trial: Traffi c Safety Act; Use of Highways On the 4th of December 2003, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdictional Dilemmas in Resource Industries I
    1979) JURISDICTIONALDILEMMAS 91 JURISDICTIONALDILEMMAS IN RESOURCEINDUSTRIES WILLIAM M. ELLIOTT• This paper highlights constitutional dilemmas posed by the Canadian constitution in matters of resource regulation., marketing and taxation., with particular em­ phasis on Saskatchewan. The background to and impact of the CIGOL case is examined, including a discussion of the issues of direct tazation and the trade and commerce power. Ancillary matters such as recovery of payments under invalid laws and techniques of interim relief also receive scndiny. Similar problems in the potash and uranium industries are analyzed. I. INTRODUCTION The dilemmas posed by constitutional limitations on the powers of provincial governments and the federal government are not confined to oil and gas, but include all resources. Oil and gas are merely part of a larger question. Furthermore, the problems vary from region to region and province to province, and the approaches and solutions vary with the political philosophy of governments of the day. The struggle is not new and will not go away even in the event of constitutional change. Corporations, whether private or publicly owned, will always be faced with the discipline of the bottom line and governments with the real or fancied "need" of politicians and tax gatherers. The words "fair", "reasonable," "just' and "unconstitu­ tional" will continue to be heard. One should not expect any so-called solutions to be more than a te.mporary lull before another storm. In a huge country divided by regions, and governed by a federal system with divided constitutional powers, the possibilities of disagreement are endless. II. HISTORY Sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act 1 give rise to most of the jurisdictional questions.
    [Show full text]