Speech (committee meeting)

{
    "time": "2007-06-12 10:20:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington\u2014Halton Hills, CPC)",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"733116\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Thank you, Mr. Chairman.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"733117\" data-originallang=\"en\">I have a question for Mr. Schafer, but before I ask the question, I just want to give a bit of background. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"733118\" data-originallang=\"en\">This program originated in the 1970s to establish a broad foundation of case law in an area that was undefined at that point because of a lot of changes that had taken place in the 1960s, 1970s, and subsequent to that in the 1980s with the Official Languages Act, with the <em>Chartre de la langue fran\u00e7aise</em> in Quebec, with the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These were significant pieces of legislation and constitutional changes that really caused a lot of confusion and questions as to the exact nature of the rights that people had with regards to linguistic rights, and also with regard to minority rights. So the court challenges program was created after that. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"733119\" data-originallang=\"en\">There are many who say that after 30 years of jurisprudence and court cases, we do have that broad foundation in law. So my first question is, do you concur with that? Do you think we do have that broad jurisprudence to be able to define what our rights are? I don't mean all of them, as obviously there are always new cases and new areas of the law that are being defined, but do you believe that after three decades we do have that broad basis in case law, both with respect to minority rights and with respect to linguistic minority rights?</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"733120\" data-originallang=\"en\">Regarding my second question, the official languages commissioner commented in his most recent report that in his view the cancellation of this program ran contrary to part VII of the Official Languages Act. So my question is, do you share that view at all? Do you have any views on that?</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"733121\" data-originallang=\"en\">Those are my two questions.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"733116\" data-originallang=\"fr\"> <em>Thank you</em>, monsieur le pr\u00e9sident.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"733117\" data-originallang=\"en\">J'ai une question pour M. Schafer mais, auparavant, j'aimerais \u00e9tablir le contexte.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"733118\" data-originallang=\"en\">On a cr\u00e9\u00e9 le Programme de contestation judiciaire dans les ann\u00e9es 1970 pour avoir de la jurisprudence dans un domaine encore tr\u00e8s flou jusqu'\u00e0 ce moment-l\u00e0 en raison des nombreux changements qui \u00e9taient survenus dans les ann\u00e9es 1960, 1970 et 1980 avec la Loi sur les langues officielles, la Charte de la langue fran\u00e7aise au Qu\u00e9bec et la Charte canadienne des droits et libert\u00e9s. Ces mesures l\u00e9gislatives et ces changements constitutionnels importants ont suscit\u00e9 beaucoup de confusion et de questions quant \u00e0 la v\u00e9ritable nature des droits linguistiques et des minorit\u00e9s. C'est \u00e0 cette \u00e9poque qu'on a mis sur pied le programme de contestation judiciaire.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"733119\" data-originallang=\"en\">Nombreux sont ceux qui affirment que, 30 ans plus tard, les diff\u00e9rentes causes ont donn\u00e9 lieu \u00e0 une jurisprudence qui constitue un solide fondement en droit. Ma premi\u00e8re question est la suivante: \u00eates-vous d'accord avec cette affirmation? Croyez-vous que nous disposons d'une vaste jurisprudence nous permettant de d\u00e9finir nos droits? Je ne parle pas de tous nos droits, manifestement, car on continue d'intenter des poursuites et de d\u00e9finir de nouveaux domaines du droit, mais croyez-vous qu'au cours des 30 derni\u00e8res ann\u00e9es, nous nous sommes dot\u00e9s d'une bonne jurisprudence concernant les droits des minorit\u00e9s et les droits linguistiques des minorit\u00e9s?</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"733120\" data-originallang=\"en\">Voici ma deuxi\u00e8me question: le commissaire aux langues officielles a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 dans son plus r\u00e9cent rapport que, \u00e0 son avis, l'annulation du Programme de contestation judiciaire violait la partie VII de la Loi sur les langues officielles. \u00cates-vous d'accord? Qu'en pensez-vous?</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"733121\" data-originallang=\"en\">Ce sont l\u00e0 mes deux questions.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/committees/official-languages/39-1/58/michael-chong-1/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/michael-chong/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1440/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "2143788",
    "document_url": "/committees/official-languages/39-1/58/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fcommittees%2Fofficial-languages%2F39-1%2F58%2F"
    }
}