Quigley v. Canada (House of Commons)

Quigley v. Canada (House of Commons)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2002-06-05
Neutral citation
2002 FCT 645
File numbers
T-2395-00
Notes
Reported Decision
Decision Content
Federal Court Reports Quigley v. Canada (House of Commons) (T.D.) [2003] 1 F.C. 132
Date: 20020605
Docket: T-2395-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 645
Toronto, Ontario, this 5th day of June, 2002
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE
BETWEEN:
LOUIS QUIGLEY
Applicant
- and -
CANADA (HOUSE OF COMMONS),
CANADA (BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY)
and CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL)
Respondents
- and -
COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES FOR CANADA
Intervener
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
O'KEEFE J.
[1] This is an application by Louis Quigley, the applicant, made pursuant to Section 77(1) of the Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.) (the "Act") for:
1. A declaration that the House of Commons' current method of providing television broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings to the public contravenes Part I, section 22, section 25 and the spirit of the Act; and
2. An order that the House of Commons comply with Part I, section 22, section 25 and the spirit of the Act, in its provision of television broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings to the public.
History of Broadcasting Parliamentary Proceedings
[2] As early as 1977, the House of Commons (the "House") approved the radio and television broadcasting of debates and proceedings on the floor of the House and in parliamentary committees on the basis of principles similar to those governing the publication of Hansard (see A. Fraser, et al., Beauchesne's Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 6th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1989) at § 1121).
[3] The House of Commons Broadcasting Service ("HCBS") is responsible for the televised recording of proceedings in the House and its committees. Initially, live coverage of House proceedings was only available in the National Capital Region via a microwave system. During the second year of operation, until October, 1979, debates were rebroadcast throughout the country using video cassettes that were distributed to various cable services. The cable services decided whether or not to broadcast the proceedings. From 1979 until 1991, the proceedings of the House were broadcast by the English and French language Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in both official languages, via two parliamentary channels established for that purpose.
[4] In 1992, the Board of Internal Economy of the House (the "Board") approved a proposal whereby the Cable Public Affairs Channel ("CPAC") would assume the cost of broadcasting House debates and proceedings for a two year period. A new agreement was signed between the House and CPAC in August, 1994 for the period from September 1, 1994 to August 31, 2001. The agreement provides in part that:
1. The House produces and delivers its debates and proceedings and certain committee proceedings in both official languages to CPAC;
2. The House will deliver to CPAC a live television (video) signal and three audio programming signals: (i) a sound signal originating from the floor of the House ("floor sound"); (ii) a sound signal in English only; and (iii) a sound signal in French only;
3. CPAC will transmit these four signals to all cable television distribution undertakings throughout Canada.
[5] CPAC is a non-profit corporation that is funded by a consortium of Canadian cable companies. In addition to the debates and proceedings of the House, CPAC also offers 30 hours per week of original programming and 46 hours each week of long format coverage of committees, conferences, hearings and special events.
[6] Broadcasting distribution undertakings ("BDU") are organized among three different classes based on how many subscribers they have. Generally, Class I BDUs have 6,000 subscribers or more, Class 2 BDUs have more than 2,000 but less than 6,000 subscribers, and Class 3 BDUs have less than 2,000 subscribers. Under the current regulations, CPAC is not a mandatory signal that BDUs must distribute but if Class 1 or 2 BDUs elect to distribute CPAC, then they must carry it as part of the basic service. Class 3 BDUs are not subject to any requirement to carry CPAC. Nevertheless, CPAC is carried widely across Canada by a variety of BDUs. For clarity, cable companies are BDUs. There is no contract between the House and the BDUs and the latter is free to choose which audio signal or signals it transmits.
[7] There is evidence, however, that recent technology would allow broadcasters to transmit one video signal and two audio signals simultaneously. This technology is known as second or secondary audio programming ("SAP") and these signals are receivable in the home using television sets or VCR units that are equipped with the appropriate decoder. Stand-alone SAP decoders are also available. In other words, a person who tunes in to CPAC could choose which of two audio signals he or she wants to listen to. There is also evidence that, while television manufacturers are not obliged to equip sets with SAP decoders, they have been doing so on most sets since the early 1990s and approximately 50% of Canadian homes have the necessary equipment. Furthermore, BDUs that choose to distribute a SAP signal on a single channel might incur upgrade costs of $500 to $5,000, depending on the equipment that they currently have (see Public Notice CRTC 2001-46).
[8] Finally, Canadians can access the audiovisual signals supplied by the House using a satellite dish or the Internet.
The Applicant's Complaint and the Commissioner's Investigation
[9] The applicant resides in Riverview, New Brunswick and subscribes to Rogers Cable Company of Moncton, New Brunswick ("Rogers Cable"). At the time of application, Rogers Cable provided the applicant with CPAC broadcasts in floor sound only. As he only speaks English, he was unable to understand those parts that are spoken in French.
[10] The applicant filed a complaint in this regard with the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada ("Commissioner") who, in turn, conducted an investigation. Consistent with the procedure set out in the Act, a preliminary copy of the Commissioner's report was provided to the federal institution under investigation for its comments. The final report was released in October, 2000: Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Enhanced Investigation Report: Investigation Report Concerning the Broadcasts and Availability of the Proceedings of the House of Commons in Both Official Languages, October 2000 (the "Report").
[11] With respect to the application of Part I of the Act, the Report concluded at pages 6 to 9 that:
1. Section 4 of the Act must be interpreted and applied in light of the spirit of the Act as a whole and its interpretation must respect the purpose of the language right at issue, the principle of equality of status and privileges of English and French, and the preservation and vitality of the official language communities [R. v. Beaulac, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768];
2. Whatever the method chosen by the House for dissemination of its debates and proceedings, the House must respect the principle of equal access to parliamentary debates and proceedings and the requirements of bilingualism that flows from the equal access principle;
3. Although the House system for the production of its debates for broadcast meets the requirements of the Act, the House has failed to ensure that the broadcasting and delivery system also meets those requirements;
4. In order to meet the requirements of the Act, the House should have taken steps to ensure that the ultimate delivery of the video and audio signals met the official language needs of all members of the Canadian public;
5. The House cannot evade its official languages obligations by entering into a contract, as in this case between itself and CPAC, that separates the production and initial broadcast of House debates and proceedings from the ultimate delivery of broadcast signals to the public, and does not address that ultimate delivery; and,
6. The House is not fully complying with its linguistic obligations as set out in Part I of the Act or with the spirit of the Act as regards the televising of its debates.
[12] With respect to Part IV of the Act, the Report concluded at pages 9 and 10 that:
1. The televising or audio-visual publication of parliamentary debates is a service provided to the public within the meaning of Part IV of the Act;
2. The decision of the House to proceed with televised rebroadcasting of its debates subjects the House to the linguistic obligations set out in section 22 of the Act;
3. The agreement between the House and CPAC, and the facts in general, show that CPAC is acting on behalf of the House within the meaning of section 25 of the Act;
4. The House must therefore ensure that CPAC takes the measures necessary to guarantee effective delivery of the services in question, i.e. televised debates and proceedings, to members of the public in their preferred official language; and,
5. The House has not ensured that its debates would be delivered in both official languages to all cable subscribers in Canada, thereby contravening sections 22 and 25 of the Act, and the spirit of the Act.
[13] Finally, at page 16 of the Report, the Commissioner recommended that the House:
1. immediately take, with all interested parties, all the measures and steps required to ensure the implementation of the right of members of the public to access televised debates in their preferred official language, pending the advent of more effective technologies; and,
2. take into account its linguistic obligations under Part I and Part IV of the Official Languages Act when it renews or concludes a new agreement with a third party to ensure that the latter takes all the measures required to ensure that parliamentary debates are ultimately televised in both official languages, so as to guarantee the effective implementation of the right of members of the public to access these debates in their preferred official language.
Applicant's Submissions
[14] The applicant submits that the Act should be given a broad and purposive interpretation. He notes in particular that many of the sections of the Act resonate in both the Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (U.K.) (the "Constitution") and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 (the "Charter"). The spirit of the Act, he says, is designed to protect the language rights that are enshrined in various constitutional documents and to allow meaningful participation in all branches of government, whether in English or in French. The applicant submits that the Act ensures the equality of both official languages so that all Canadians will have equal access to and service from federal institutions (see the preamble and section 2 of the Act; section 133 of the Constitution, subsections 16(1), 17(1), 18(1), 19(1) and 20(1) of the Charter).
[15] In the applicant's view, section 4 of the Act protects the language rights of participants in parliamentary proceedings as well as the language rights of non-participants who rely on official reports of those proceedings. While the applicant concedes that the House need not always report on its proceedings, he asserts that when the House elects to do so, a translation is required. Such an interpretation, he says, is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R v. Beaulac, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768. The applicant argues that the respondents cannot satisfy their responsibility under Part I of the Act by transmitting three audio signals to CPAC because this would allow the House to absolve itself of its statutory responsibilities by simply contracting with outside parties.
[16] The applicant submits that members of the public must be able to obtain services from every federal institution in either official language. Moreover, federal institutions are subject to this same obligation even when those services are provided to the public on their behalf by other persons or organizations pursuant to sections 22 and 25 of the Act. The applicant submits that the House is clearly a "federal institution" under subsection 3(1) of the Act. In the applicant's view, the House has a duty to ensure that the organization with whom it contracts regarding the broadcast of televised debates (CPAC) takes steps to guarantee that those debates are ultimately broadcast in both official languages.
[17] In particular, the applicant relies on the notion that parliamentary privilege can only be claimed where it is necessary such that without that privilege, the House could not discharge its functions (see J.P.J. Maingot, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, 2nd ed. (McGill-Queen's University Press, 1997); Sir D. Limon & W.R. McKay, eds., Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 22nd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1997)). Privilege is extended because the particular issue is seen as being critical to the very existence of the legislative body. While Madam Justice McLachlin recognized a category of privilege which she described as "control of publication of debates and proceedings in the House" at page 385 of her reasons in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319 ("New Brunswick Broadcasting") apparently this privilege is particular has never been considered before. Nevertheless, the applicant asserts, and in this he says that he is supported by Maingot and May, that the privilege over the publication of debates or proceedings is closely connected with the right to exclude strangers from proceedings. The applicant submits that both are concerned with free speech and fair and accurate reporting, but not with dissemination after publication. The applicant argues that the House is free to close its doors to the public but once the doors are open, the House may not legally proceed to violate the provisions of the Act.
[18] The applicant also submits that in order to claim privilege, the respondents must show that the activity over which the privilege is sought must be integral to the functioning of the parliament House legislator (see Harvey v. New Brunswick (Attorney General) [1996] 2 S.C.R. 876 ("Harvey")). McLachlin J. (as she then was), with whom L'Heureux-Dubé J. concurred, wrote the following about necessity at pages 918 and 919:
To prevent abuses cloaked in the guise of privilege from trumping legitimate Charter interests, the courts must inquire into the legitimacy of a claim of parliamentary privilege. As this Court made clear in New Brunswick Broadcasting, the courts may properly question whether a claimed privilege exists. The screening role means that where it is alleged that a person has been expelled or disqualified on invalid grounds, the courts must determine whether the act falls within the scope of parliamentary privilege. If the court concludes that it does, no further review lies.
British jurisprudence distinguishes between privileges asserted by resolution and privileges effected automatically by statute. In respect of privileges asserted by resolution, British courts have developed a doctrine of necessity, enabling them to inquire whether the action taken by resolution is necessary to the proper functioning of the House. The necessity inquiry does not ask whether the particular action at issue was necessary, and hence does not involve substantive judicial review. Rather, it asks whether the dignity, integrity and efficiency of the legislative body could be maintained if it were not permitted to carry out the type of action sought to be done, for example to expel a person from the legislature or disqualify a person from seeking office on grounds of corruption. Following this rule, this Court in New Brunswick Broadcasting inquired whether the resolution there in issue was necessary to the proper functioning of the legislature and the maintenance of its integrity. The question was left open whether a similar inquiry should be conducted where a legislated privilege, like the one asserted in the case at bar, is in question.
[19] Here, the applicant argues that the respondents cannot meet the test of necessity as the dignity, integrity and efficiency of the House is not threatened by the Commissioner's order. Rather, the applicant submits that the opposite would be true as it would ensure that all Canadians have equal rights in accessing the proceedings of their elected representatives. In the applicant's view, a successful claim for privilege involves balancing certain interests, including the degree to which persons outside the legislative body are affected, the need for Parliament to regulate, and the rights of citizens to take issues to court. In this case, the applicant submits that the issue is not one which is confined to the House, its internal proceedings and functions, but rather is one which affects a broad number of Canadians as well as their ability to participate meaningfully and knowledgeably in Canada's democratic institutions.
[20] The applicant submits that the respondents' claim of parliamentary privilege is merely a technical argument used to circumvent their obligations and responsibilities under the Act. This "defence" was not raised at any point before the commencement of these proceedings. First, the applicant argues that section 18 of the Constitution requires that the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the House be defined by an Act of Parliament. Those privileges, he says, are set out in section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1. However, to the extent that the Parliament of Canada Act, supra is inconsistent with the Act, then the Act should predominate and defeat the assertion of privilege.
Intervener's (Commissioner's) Submissions
[21] The Commissioner submits that subsection 4(3) must be given a broad and purposive interpretation so that the goal of full and equal access to parliamentary debates and proceedings in both official languages is fulfilled. The intervener argues that for many Canadians, watching parliamentary debates is a practical and convenient alternative to obtaining printed copies of Hansard.
[22] For its part, the Commissioner argues that, by virtue of its contract with CPAC for the distribution and delivery of broadcast signals originating from the House, the House has engaged CPAC to deliver those signals to Canadians on its behalf. Furthermore, it is asserted that, as the exclusive source of such broadcast signals, the House is well-positioned to set contractual pre-conditions on its delivery of broadcast signals to CPAC and on CPAC's dealings with BDUs. The intervener also submits that a federal institution may not limit constitutional language rights by transferring the performance of certain of its functions where, if that federal institution had performed that function itself, it would have been obliged to comply with the Act (see Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Canada (Department of Justice) (2001), 194 F.T.R. 181). It is also argued that the House's obligations cannot be satisfied by its "best efforts".
[23] The Commissioner submits that this Court is entitled to determine whether the respondents' claim of parliamentary privilege is valid. The Commissioner submits that this involves a two-stage inquiry. First, is the general activity claimed to be a constitutional parliamentary privilege actually a recognized constitutional parliamentary privilege? Second, is the particular activity in respect of which privilege is claimed actually part of that general constitutional parliamentary privilege? Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario v. Ontario Human Rights Commission and Freitag (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 595 (Ont. C.A.), is a case where a non-elected person complained that the use of the Lord's Prayer as part of the Legislature's daily opening exercise pursuant to a standing order violated his right to equal treatment without discrimination. In that case, Mr. Justice Finlayson wrote the following at paragraph 25:
Therefore, while it is true to say in the abstract that parliamentary privilege covers those matters which are necessary to the functioning of the House, "necessity" in this context applies to categories of matters, and each particular exercise of privilege within a category is not scrutinized against a standard of necessity. As noted by McLachlin J., once a court has decided that a category of matters is necessary to the independent functioning of the House, it does not then go on to decide whether each individual exercise of privilege is necessary, but, rather, only has to ask whether the particular exercise in question falls within the recognized category of privilege. If it does, it is not subject to outside review.
[24] The Commissioner agrees that control of publication of debates and proceedings is an inherent, and therefore constitutional, parliamentary privilege of the House yet contests that the House can control the language of publication as part of its privilege.
[25] The Commissioner submits that the purpose of the privilege is to prevent false and perverted reports of its proceedings. Therefore, the House should be able to exert its privilege over the decision to publish or to control the extent of what is published but not the language in which something is published.
[26] The Commissioner submits that if the choice of language is part of the House's privilege as defined historically or generically, it must be read with other parts of the Constitution; namely, section 133 of the Constitution and section 18 of the Charter. Since no part of the Constitution may abrogate or diminish any other part of the Constitution, potentially conflicting constitutional provisions must be read together and reconciled so that each may have the fullest meaning possible (see New Brunswick Broadcasting and Harvey). The Commissioner argues that the wording in this case is stronger than in Harvey and specifically that, in the face of section 133 of the Constitution, the privilege of control of publication that is recognized by the preamble to the Constitution could not have included the language of publication. Of course, section 133 of the Constitution was later supported by various provisions in the Charter.
[27] If the Court rejects the arguments above, the Commissioner submits that sections 3 and 4 of the Act amended the Canadian constitutional privilege of control of publication to exclude the two official languages from the privilege pursuant to section 44 of the Constitution. It is noted that the Act specifically preserves parliamentary privilege with respect to the personal offices and staff of its Members and Senators pursuant to section 90 of the Act. The Commissioner submits that this is confirmation that the Act intended to amend Constitutional provisions with respect to parliamentary privilege, save certain narrow exceptions.
Respondents' Submissions
[28] The respondents submit that the publication of House proceedings is one of the inherent privileges of the House and that this privilege enjoys constitutional protection. For these propositions, the respondents rely heavily on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in New Brunswick Broadcasting per McLachlin J. (as she then was). In that case, the Speaker of the Nova Scotia Legislature excluded independent television cameras from the House. Therefore, an application was brought before the courts for an order that that decision violated section 2(b) of the Charter. In the respondents' submissions, the court held that inherent privileges are protected by the preamble of the Constitution, that the Speaker's decision fell within the Legislature's inherent privilege to exclude strangers, and that the judiciary had no power to review the exercise of such a privilege.
[29] The respondents rely on the categories of privilege which arose in the United Kingdom and that McLachlin J. (as she then was) enumerated in the New Brunswick Broadcasting case at pages 385 to 386, including control of publication of debates and proceedings in the House. The respondents submit that those privileges are preserved by section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, supra. The respondents rely on New Brunswick Broadcasting for the proposition that Constitutional rights cannot be diminished because one part of the Constitution cannot abrogate another.
[30] The respondents submit that this is really a division of powers issue and such that when a legislative body exercises one of its inherent privileges, the Court has no business reviewing that decision. In any event, the respondents argue that the House is attempting to deal with the issue.
[31] If the Court does not agree that the House's decision falls within its inherent privileges, then the respondents submit that they have not violated the Act in any way. First, with respect to section 25 of the Act, the respondents submit that Rogers Cable is not providing a service on behalf of the House. The respondents submit that a person who acts "on behalf" of a federal institution under section 25 is a person over whom the federal institution exercises sufficient control so that the institution may "ensure" that this person provides bilingual services. The respondents submit that a private retailer that is free to contract or not to contract is not subject to that degree of control. Although the respondents concede that Rogers Cable could be forced to transmit two audio signals by enacting the appropriate regulations under the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, the respondents submit that the House and the Board do not have such power. The respondents submit that if the House was ordered to seek an undertaking from CPAC that in its contracts with cable distributors, CPAC would ensure that French and English audio signals were transmitted, then many distributors would simply refuse to carry CPAC at all. The respondents submit that this would lead to a negative result since the number of people who have access to CPAC would be reduced and the funding arrangement that CPAC currently enjoys would be put into jeopardy.
[32] The respondents submit that if the interpretation suggested by the applicant was to apply, then the House would also have an obligation to ensure that Rogers Cable had bilingual employees to answer its customer's concerns. If a private bookstore sells federal publications, the respondents question whether section 25 would create a duty to ensure that the sales clerk speaks both official languages.
[33] The respondents submit that the spirit, along with Part I of the Act, are not triggered by the applicant's complaint. The respondents submit that the use of both languages in Parliament is protected and that all records or communications are made available in both official languages. In other words, the respondents contend that they have discharged their obligations under the Act and they should not be held responsible if the applicant is not able to access what is provided (i.e. via satellite or Internet).
[34] With respect to an appropriate remedy, the respondents submit that the House has no power to force CPAC into agreeing with any specific terms nor can it force any agreement between CPAC and private BDUs. The respondents submit that the best remedy would be an amendment to the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, SOR/97-555, which the respondents submit is not in the power of the House or the Board. The respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, submits that the Court should not go beyond issuing a declaration. In the alternative, the implementation of any order should be left to the CRTC which is a specialized and independent agency and is best positioned to consider complex technological, economic and cultural policy issues.
[35] Issues
1. Does this Court have jurisdiction to apply the Act to the House or can the House assert its inherent constitutional privilege?
2. Is the House in breach of its linguistic obligations under the Act?
3. What is the appropriate remedy on the facts of this case?
[36] Applicable Legislation
The relevant portions of the Constitution are:
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom: . . .
18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.
133. Either the English or the French Language may be used by any Person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those Languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec.
The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those Languages.
Considérant que les provinces du Canada, de la Nouvelle-Écosse et du Nouveau-Brunswick ont exprimé le désir de contracter une Union Fédérale pour ne former qu'une seule et même Puissance (Dominion) sous la couronne du Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande, avec une constitution reposant sur les mêmes principes que celle du Royaume-Uni:
. . .
18. Les privilèges, immunités et pouvoirs que posséderont et exerceront le Sénat et la Chambre des Communes et les membres de ces corps respectifs, seront ceux prescrits de temps à autre par loi du Parlement du Canada; mais de manière à ce qu'aucune loi du Parlement du Canada définissant tels privilèges, immunités et pouvoirs ne donnera aucuns privilèges, immunités ou pouvoirs excédant ceux qui, lors de la passation de la présente loi, sont possédés et exercés par la Chambre des Communes du Parlement du Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande et par les membres de cette Chambre.
133. Dans les chambres du parlement du Canada et les chambres de la législature de Québec, l'usage de la langue française ou de la langue anglaise, dans les débats, sera facultatif; mais dans la rédaction des archives, procès-verbaux et journaux respectifs de ces chambres, l'usage de ces deux langues sera obligatoire; et dans toute plaidoirie ou pièce de procédure par-devant les tribunaux ou émanant des tribunaux du Canada qui seront établis sous l'autorité de la présente loi, et par-devant tous les tribunaux ou émanant des tribunaux de Québec, il pourra être fait également usage, à faculté, de l'une ou de l'autre de ces langues.
Les lois du parlement du Canada et de la législature de Québec devront être imprimées et publiées dans ces deux langues.
[37] The relevant portions of the Charter are:
16. (1) 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. . . .
17. (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament. . . .
18. (1) The statutes, records and journals of Parliament shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative. . . .
20. (1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where
(a) there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or
(b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French.
16. (1) Le français et l'anglais sont les langues officielles du Canada; ils ont un statut et des droits et privilèges égaux quant à leur usage dans les institutions du Parlement et du gouvernement du Canada. . . .
17. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le français ou l'anglais dans les débats et travaux du Parlement. . . .
18. (1) Les lois, les archives, les comptes rendus et les procès-verbaux du Parlement sont imprimés et publiés en français et en anglais, les deux versions des lois ayant également force de loi et celles des autres documents ayant même valeur. . . .
20. (1) Le public a, au Canada, droit à l'emploi du français ou de l'anglais pour communiquer avec le siège ou l'administration centrale des institutions du Parlement ou du gouvernement du Canada ou pour en recevoir les services; il a le même droit à l'égard de tout autre bureau de ces institutions là où, selon le cas:
a) l'emploi du français ou de l'anglais fait l'objet d'une demande importante;
b) l'emploi du français et de l'anglais se justifie par la vocation du bureau.
[38] Section 44 of the Constitution states:
44. Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.
44. Sous réserve des articles 41 et 42, le Parlement a compétence exclusive pour modifier les dispositions de la Constitution du Canada relatives au pouvoir exécutif fédéral, au Sénat ou à la Chambre des communes.
[39] Portions of the Official Languages Act, supra state:
WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada provides 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;
AND WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada provides for full and equal access to Parliament, to the laws of Canada and to courts established by Parliament in both official languages;
AND WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada also provides for guarantees relating to the right of any member of the public to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in either official language;
2. The purpose of this Act is to
(a) ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions, in particular with respect to their use in parliamentary proceedings, in legislative and other instruments, in the administration of justice, in communicating with or providing services to the public and in carrying out the work of federal institutions; . . .
76. In this Part, "Court" means the Federal Court -- Trial Division.
Attendu_:
que la Constitution dispose que le français et l'anglais sont les langues officielles du Canada et qu'ils ont un statut et des droits et privilèges égaux quant à leur usage dans les institutions du Parlement et du gouvernement du Canada;
qu'elle prévoit l'universalité d'accès dans ces deux langues en ce qui a trait au Parlement et à ses lois ainsi qu'aux tribunaux établis par celui-ci;
qu'elle prévoit en outre des garanties quant au droit du public à l'emploi de l'une ou l'autre de ces langues pour communiquer avec les institutions du Parlement et du gouvernement du Canada ou pour en recevoir les services;
2. La présente loi a pour objet_:
a) d'assurer le respect du français et de l'anglais à titre de langues officielles du Canada, leur égalité de statut et l'égalité de droits et privilèges quant à leur usage dans les institutions fédérales, notamment en ce qui touche les débats et travaux du Parlement, les actes législatifs et autres, l'administration de la justice, les communications avec le public et la prestation des services, ainsi que la mise en oeuvre des objectifs de ces institutions; . . .
76. Le tribunal visé à la présente partie est la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale.
77. (1) Any person who has made a complaint to the Commissioner in respect of a right or duty under sections 4 to 7, sections 10 to 13 or Part IV or V, or in respect of section 91, may apply to the Court for a remedy under this Part.
(2) An application may be made under subsection (1) within sixty days after
(a) the results of an investigation of the complaint by the Commissioner are reported to the complainant under subsection 64(1),
(b) the complainant is informed of the recommendations of the Commissioner under subsection 64(2), or
(c) the complainant is informed of the Commissioner's decision to refuse or cease to investigate the complaint under subsection 58(5),
or within such further time as the Court may, either before or after the expiration of those sixty days, fix or allow.
(3) Where a complaint is made to the Commissioner under this Act but the complainant is not informed of the results of the investigation of the complaint under subsection 64(1), of the recommendations of the Commissioner under subsection 64(2) or of a decision under subsection 58(5) within six months after the complaint is made, the complainant may make an application under subsection (1) at any time thereafter.
(4) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), the Court concludes that a federal institution has failed to comply with this Act, the Court may grant such remedy as it considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
(5) Nothing in this section abrogates or derogates from any right of action a person might have other than the right of action set out in this section.
77. (1) Quiconque a saisi le commissaire d'une plainte visant une obligation ou un droit prévus aux articles 4 à 7 et 10 à 13 ou aux parties IV ou V, ou fondée sur l'article 91 peut former un recours devant le tribunal sous le régime de la présente partie.
(2) Sauf délai supérieur accordé par le tribunal sur demande présentée ou non avant l'expiration du délai normal, le recours est formé dans les soixante jours qui suivent la communication au plaignant des conclusions de l'enquête, des recommandations visées au paragraphe 64(2) ou de l'avis de refus d'ouverture ou de poursuite d'une enquête donné au titre du paragraphe 58(5).
(3) Si, dans les six mois suivant le dépôt d'une plainte, il n'est pas avisé des conclusions de l'enquête, des recommandations visées au paragraphe 64(2) ou du refus opposé au titre du paragraphe 58(5), le plaignant peut former le recours à l'expiration de ces six mois.
(4) Le tribunal peut, s'il estime qu'une institution fédérale ne s'est pas conformée à la présente loi, accorder la réparation qu'il estime convenable et juste eu égard aux circonstances.
(5) Le présent article ne porte atteinte à aucun autre droit d'action.
82. (1) In the event of any inconsistency between the following Parts and any other Act of Parliament or regulation thereunder, the following Parts prevail to the extent of the inconsistency:
(a) Part I (Proceedings of Parliament);
(b) Part II (Legislative and other Instruments);
(c) Part III (Administration of Justice);
(d) Part IV (Communications with and Services to the Public); and
(e) Part V (Language of Work).
90. Nothing in this Act abrogates or derogates from any powers, privileges or immunities of members of the Senate or the House of Commons in respect of their personal offices and staff or of j