Parliamentarians can have
difficulty agreeing on the meaning of a rule they are studying for an
organization whose rules are written in English. What are the challenges faced
when the rules are officially bi-lingual?
The Official Languages Act
of 1969 is an act of the Canadian Parliament that recognizes English and French
as the official languages of Canada. This paper will analyze the Standing Orders Of The Legislative Assembly
Of Ontario/Règlement de l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario to identify
any differences in interpretation that could arise when the French version of
the rules as opposed to the English version is examined.
First of all, participants
of the sessions of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario may
speak “in either English or French”.1 The Standing Orders make no other reference to language, yet all
records of the proceeding are bi-lingual. Simultaneous translation
of the debate is provided. The implication that confusion may arise from this
simultaneous process will not be considered here. Also, because the vote of
members of the legislature is often restricted by party affiliation, the
language fluency of members is unlikely to be a factor when counting votes.
However, could the
situation arise where in a free vote on a question arising from the need to
interpret the rules the correct vote would be clear to all who are fluent in
one language (the minority) and ambiguous to others (the majority)? Is language
pertinent to decision making?
It does not take long to
come up with examples. Starting with the title, one language may use a
qualified word to express meaning e.g. “Standing Orders” where the other
language uses an unqualified word e.g. “Règlement (Order)”. The only hint that
we are dealing with a specific rule rather than a set of rules is the use of
the singular in French rather than the English plural. The French version
becomes identical when the text defines what is being considered and a
qualified plural word is used i.e. ‘The rules of order applicable to… follow.”2
Another example of the
misuse of the plural occurs when the English version entitles a Section:
“Presiding Officers”3 (plural)
when talking about the Election of Speaker (singular). Since only the title of
the section is involved, there is no confusion. The word Speaker is used here
in the sense of “One who is the mouthpiece of others” .4 The French
uses the word President in the sense of “Who presides an assembly”.5
The distinctions that arise from the differences in the meaning of words in the
two languages should not cause difficulties for anyone fluent in either
language.
Also, the English word
“Officers” is translated more specifically as
“Functionaries”. Though the French is a more accurate description of the
role being played, there is no practical difficulty with the English usage
given the context in which the word is being used: “Officers and Servants of
the House”.6
An example of the final
kind of difference is the use of the English word “Hansard” for which there is
no corresponding word in the French language. The French version uses words
that are the equivalent to the definition of the word in English: “The Journal
of the debates”.7
After reading both
versions of the document completely, a reader who is fluently bi-lingual would
not find any reason to raise a point of order based on the language of the
document except in one case: Balloting procedure for the election of the
Speaker. The French version says: “a ballot paper on which is printed the name
of the member”. The English version says: “a ballot paper on which is printed
the name of the candidate”.8 The implication of the French version
is that a member may vote for any member not just those who have been properly
nominated i.e. candidates. In all other instances, the French version uses the
word “candidate” when the English version uses “candidate” and “member” when
the English uses “member”. One cannot therefore argue that it is an error in
translation. One is truly unable to determine which is the correct interpretation
of this clause.
Now it gets interesting.
The rules state that “questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair”.9
But the procedure in question is the election of Speaker at the opening of the
first session of a Parliament. There is no Speaker at this moment to decide the
question. The Clerk, who is not a member, at this point is following well laid
out instructions in the rules to facilitate the election of Speaker. Is then the Clerk acting as Chair at this
moment? Must the Clerk decide the
question? The rules state that the decision shall be reached “in a manner that
respects the democratic rights of members” 10 and “shall have regard
to any applicable usages and precedents of the Legislature and Parliamentary
tradition.”11
With no member in the
Chair, it can be argued that the assembly should rule on this question. Then we
are faced with respecting the democratic rights of members. If the answer to
the question is absolutely clear in the language of the minority and
unquestionably ambiguous in the language of the majority, are the democratic
rights of the minority members being respected if a majority vote is taken?
Should not the count of the vote on a question that depends for a correct vote
on the language fluency of the voter take into account that fluency? In the
Ontario Legislature, there would be three groups of voters based on language
fluency: French only fluency, English only fluency, and fluently bi-lingual. A
member could choose a ballot from three otherwise identical ballot forms each
identifying one of these groups. When a vote is required that depends on
language fluency, a multi-lingual majority would be required. This means that a
majority would have to be achieved in each of the three language groups for the
question to be adopted. This would of course be a majority of the members and
it would help ensure that the impact of language on the question would be taken
into account.
Ignoring the fact that
veto power hardly makes the United Nations a democratic institution, would the
use of a multi-lingual majority in the United Nations Assembly provide for more
democratic decisions in that body?
Petit
Dictionnaire Français (Paris, France: Librarie Larousse, 1936)
Standing
Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario/Règlement de l’Assemblée législative
de l’Ontario (Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1999)
Webster’s
New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1960)
1 Standing
Orders section VI, 22, (a).
2 Standing
Orders section I, 1, (a).
3 Standing
Orders section II.
4 Webster
p 812.
5 Petit
Dictionnaire p 543.
6 Standing
Orders section XXIII.
7 Standing
Orders section XXII.
8 Standing
Orders section II, 3, (f) (i).
9 Standing
Orders section I, 1, (c).
10 Standing
Orders section I, 1, (b).
11 Standing
Orders section I, 1, (c).
