This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, which ended in March 2011.
This bill was previously introduced in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session and the 40th Parliament, 1st Session.
Yvon Godin NDP
Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)
Outside the Order of Precedence (a private member's bill that hasn't yet won the draw that determines which private member's bills can be debated), as of Nov. 26, 2008
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Supreme Court Act and introduces a new requirement for judges appointed to the Supreme Court to understand English and French without the assistance of an interpreter.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker Denise Savoie
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
The Acting Speaker Denise Savoie
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
On division.
The Acting Speaker Denise Savoie
I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Madam Speaker, I want to sincerely thank the members of this House who supported my bill at second reading and in committee. Bill C-232 will now be debated at third reading.
I would have liked Parliament to be unanimous on such an important bill. Unfortunately, one political party, the Conservatives, refused to support it. I hope they change their minds.
I am pleased to see that my bill has reached third reading, and I am happy to speak once again during the debate on this bill, which will become part of Canadian history.
When this bill was studied in committee, we had the chance to see that it was very well received all across Canada. Lawyers who have appeared before the Supreme Court many times, French-language jurists' associations from across the country, the New Brunswick bar association, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes, and the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, have all come out in favour of this bill.
As I have explained many times before, Bill C-232 will ensure that Supreme Court justices understand English and French without the assistance of an interpreter. This bill would correct a flaw that constitutes a threat to human rights in our country.
Currently, at the Supreme Court, which is the final court of appeal in our country, citizens' language rights are not respected. According to the Official Languages Act, every federal court has the duty to ensure that the language chosen by the parties is understood by the judge or other officer who hears those proceedings, without the assistance of an interpreter.
There is only one exception: the Supreme Court of Canada. That is rather ironic. In federal courts of appeal, the judges must understand both languages; however, that is not the case for judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The statutes of Canada are not written in one official language, then translated into the other. They are drafted bilingually, neither language taking precedence over the other. This means that the English law and the French law are inextricably linked and together form the Canadian law.
The ability to hear a case in both official languages is a skill. A point that is often raised by those opposing the bill is that very competent judges could be overlooked because they do not understand both official languages. That does not make sense. Given that the laws of this country have been written in both official languages without being translated, the ability to understand both versions of the law without translation is an important legal skill.
In this regard, Mr. Graham Fraser, the Official Languages Commissioner, said:
So when someone comes forward and says, or says about a candidate, that he is very competent, that he has all of this experience, but he doesn't have the ability to hear a case that's presented before the Supreme Court in the language in which that case is presented, then he is missing a critical competence. He is actually not as competent as a candidate for the Supreme Court who does have that ability.
On this same subject, Mr. Michel Doucet, a professor at the Université de Moncton who has argued before the Supreme Court at least seven times before, told the committee:
In my opinion, in a Canadian setting, with the legislation that we have and with our interpretation of bilingual legislation, to be competent to sit as a justice of the Supreme Court, one must understand both languages.
According to Christian Michaud, a lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court:
The issue of a judge's bilingualism, in these conditions, is not a merely political issue that only deserves lip service, but it is an issue of capability and competence so that a judge can fully carry out the duties of his position.
In committee, Marie-Claude Bélanger-Richard, vice- president of the Law Society of New Brunswick said:
Competency in law involves more than the pure legal principles. If you want to be a good jurist, you have to know the law; you have to know the application of the law, but also have some sense of equity and justice.
The argument that requiring candidates to be bilingual would exclude the best ones is absurd. Understanding both official languages without the help of an interpreter is one of the most important competencies for judges in Canada.
Another argument used by those who oppose this bill is that there are not enough bilingual candidates in the country. Once again, this argument does not stick.
Representatives from the University of Toronto have said that they will support this bill and, as soon as it is passed, they will tell lawyers who wish to become judges that they must start learning the other language. They also said that they would not start right away since it is not yet a requirement.
Universities have said that they will be ready, as soon as the law comes into force, to offer language training. Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, had this to say:
If Parliament were to pass this bill, it would send a powerful message to Canada's law schools that mastering both official languages is a prerequisite for full mastery of the law, and for qualification for the most important and prestigious positions in the Canadian judiciary.
These programs are not intended for the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada but for those starting out in their careers...Some law schools offer specialized courses. The University of Western Ontario, I believe, offers a specialized course for lawyers who want to master the technicalities of legal terminology in French. The earlier you learn a second language, the better.
Louise Aucoin, president of the Federation of Associations of French-speaking Jurists of Common Law, inc., also commented on this issue:
For those who may be wondering whether there are many bilingual or francophone lawyers in Canada, I'd like to point out that there are French-speaking jurists' associations in the four western provinces, in Ontario, in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia. The seven francophone jurists' associations represent approximately 1,350 francophone jurists.
Over the last two years, a number of cases were heard without interpretation: the Halotier case, before the Yukon Court of Appeal; the Rémillard case before the Manitoba Court of Appeal; FFT versus NWT; the Caron case. These are all French cases which proceeded without interpretation.
Some people claim that no one is qualified in these provinces, but that is false. How many times have I heard people who oppose this bill—the Conservatives—say that it limits lawyers' and judges' chances of being appointed to the Supreme Court?
Violating the laws of this country, including language laws, to give someone the opportunity to sit on the Supreme Court should be out of the question. The Supreme Court, as well as appeal courts and federal courts, understand that this service is offered to all citizens.
It is the citizen who should feel at ease before the court and before the judge. The Conservatives should not refrain from changing the legislation to make this service bilingual just so they can play favourites with their cronies who do not speak both official languages.
Even the Commissioner of Official Languages says that if you want to be competent, you have to be able to understand your client and interpret what they are saying.
The only argument the government makes is that it will not be able to appoint who it wants, and it wants to choose very competent people. But we must recall very clearly that in order to be competent, as I said, you have to be able to understand the person. There are 33 million people in Canada. They cannot make me believe that they cannot find nine competent people who speak both languages.
I want one point to be very clear. I am not asking for there to be nothing but French speakers on the Supreme Court of Canada. Some English speakers understand English and French well. If they are English speakers, certainly they understand English, but they also understand French, both official languages, the languages of the two people who founded this country and who are supposed to be treated equally.
The Supreme Court has even made a decision in Ontario in which it said that it was not a matter of merely accommodating or providing services, it was also necessary to do so equally. At present, it is not equal.
If the legislation was written in both official languages, that is, if it was not interpreted, why would an individual agree, in the Supreme Court, that a judge not understand them in their own language and have to rely on translation? That is their final appeal.
Other opponents say they can rely on simultaneous interpretation. We have interpreters here, in the House of Commons. They have known me well for a long time. I am not criticizing our interpreters. They also work in the committees and they do a good job. Let me give an example. When I spoke at second reading, I started to speak as I normally do, a little fast, and the Speaker had to ask me to slow down a bit because the interpreters could not follow me. Think about if I were on trial, and the interpreter could not follow me, and the judge did not grasp everything they needed in order to render their judgment.
Justice John Major, an English-speaking former judge of the Supreme Court, testified. He said that during his time as a Supreme Court judge, he had used the services of interpreters and he received very good service. I would have liked to be there to ask him a question. With all due respect, if I, as a French speaker, use the interpretation service and I do not understand a word of the other language being translated, how can I know whether the interpreter is doing a good job? How can I know that if I cannot distinguish between the two languages? Justice Major of the Supreme Court said that he had received good service, but he does not know whether everything was interpreted properly. In order to be able to judge that, you have to understand both languages.
Sometimes, I am in a committee, and I find that a witness is speaking too fast and the interpreter is not following. I cannot grasp everything the witness is saying. So if I do not know that the interpreter has made a mistake and if I do not understand the other language, how can I say whether the service I received was good or bad? I can only say that I was impressed.
And so this bill is very important. Its purpose is to ensure that both official languages are respected in the highest federal court in this country. The Bloc Québécois supports me, as do the Liberals. I hope the Conservatives, too, respect both the official languages of this country and will join us to vote for this bill, so that the Supreme Court will finally be given the chance to be bilingual in the years to come.
The Acting Speaker Denise Savoie
Before proceeding to questions and comments, I must say that, while appreciating the hon. member's passionate delivery, our interpreters would appreciate it if he could speak a tad slower, so that they can translate what he says.
Questions and comments.
The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Madam Speaker, first, I wish to thank my colleague for his speech.
He raised an important point. We may tend to speak a little faster in French. This makes it a little harder for the interpreters, who are doing an excellent job, to follow what we are saying. The same is true at the Supreme Court level.
I would like the member for Acadie—Bathurst to clarify a point. When he says that he hopes the government too will support his bill, I do not think he means just with kind words. He does not expect the government to just say nice things about official languages, but to actually vote for his bill, so that being bilingual becomes required to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Is that right? Does the member not want the Conservatives to do more than say nice things about bilingualism, and take some very concrete action like passing this bill concerning the Supreme Court?
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
I will try not to speak too fast. That is what happened at the Supreme Court; someone was speaking very fast. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asked him to slow down since the interpreters could not keep up and someone was being judged. I just wanted to mention that. I think we should bear that in mind because the Supreme Court is the last court in the land to which an individual has recourse.
The Conservatives are saying that they respect both official languages. Take for example the Olympic Games. All week they have been making statements in the House of Commons to the effect that the Olympic Games were held in both official languages and that everything went well. No one is criticizing the Olympic Games themselves, but there was something missing culturally speaking. However, the Conservatives never talk about that. Even the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages publicly apologized for this. He thought it was a shame. For a week we have been listening to the Conservative Party say in the House of Commons that it respects both official languages. If it truly respects the equality of the two official languages of the country, French and English, then this is a good opportunity to prove it. When the Federal Court has to be bilingual, when the Federal Court of Appeal has to be bilingual, then the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land, has to be bilingual as well.
If the Conservatives vote against the bill, this will prove that they do not support bilingualism in Canada, they do not support the two official languages and they do not support the two founding peoples of this country. This will be a test for the Conservatives and they will have to make a choice.
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who is working very hard for Acadians and all his constituents as well as for ensuring that French is respected both within New Brunswick and across Canada.
The hon. member knows that I am a sovereignist, a separatist, with a Franco-Ontarian background who has lived in Saskatchewan. I have lived more years outside Quebec than in Quebec. How am I supposed to feel like at home in this country if the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, does not even respect the fact that I should be able to be heard and understood by the judges sitting on that court?
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
We are in 2010, Madam Speaker. It is about time this issue was resolved.
Just yesterday, I had to raise the question about the judges that will be appointed in New Brunswick. They expect to have two judges who speak English only. That is what happened last time, and that is contrary to the law. There is no equality anymore. For example, should New Brunswick appoint judges who speak English only, francophones will have their own court, where proceedings will be in French, but they will have to wait a year before being able to go to court. That is not right.
Here is another example. Mr. Doucet, who pleaded cases at the Supreme Court, referred in French to Mr. St-Coeur. But this name was translated as Mr. Five O'Clock by the interpreters. Come on. This can no longer be tolerated.
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I would like to remind my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, that unlike the Olympics, in order to be understood, it is not the speed of speech that is essential. But more practically, it is to be understood that is paramount.
To start, I would like to make something clear. On this side of the House, we have implemented a number of measures to protect and advance the issue of bilingualism in this country. I believe that languages can be used as a bridge or as a wall between peoples. In the House, these languages are often used both ways. I think that we need a lot more bridges.
After I was elected, I started studying to better communicate in French. However, I must admit that for an anglophone, it is a rather daunting task.
Today, in the House, we are debating a private members' bill from the member for Acadie—Bathurst, Bill C-232.
Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), would amend the Supreme Court Act to require that, as a condition of appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, a candidate understand both English and French without the assistance of an interpreter.
I would like to repeat that the government is committed to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minorities in Canada, and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society. Let me assure everyone that we are equally committed to maintaining the highest quality of judicial appointments to ensure that our judiciary continues to enjoy the respect and confidence of all Canadians.
The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of supporting and assisting the development of official language minority communities. To that end, in June 2008, the government announced the “Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013”, which is an unprecedented government-wide commitment with a budget of $1.1 billion based on two pillars: the participation of all in linguistic duality and support for official language minority communities in the priority sectors of health, justice, immigration, economic development, and arts and culture.
The composition of the court, including the number of judges, is established by the Supreme Court Act, which provides that at least three of the justices must come from Quebec. The recognition of the civil law tradition of the province of Quebec makes it necessary that there be representation of Quebec judges on the court reflective of the bijural traditions of Canada.
However, it is important to recognize that the court has historically also reflected the regional composition of our country. The current practice is one which is based, by statute and historical practice, on the recognition of Canadian legal pluralism, as well as the regional diversity in the appointment process.
As a matter of long-standing practice, the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada has reflected regional representation with three judges appointed from Ontario, one judge from Atlantic Canada, one judge from the Prairies, and one from British Columbia. Given its status as the final court of appeal for all Canadian jurisdictions, it is of key importance that the government be in a position to draw upon qualified jurists from all regions of the country when making appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The effect of Bill C-232 would be to have linguistic considerations override the central consideration of merit by reducing the pool of otherwise highly-qualified candidates in some regions of the country where there may be fewer lawyers and judges capable of hearing a case in both official languages without the assistance of an interpreter.
To date, the government has made over 300 judicial appointments to Canadian courts. We are proud of each and every one of those appointments since they reflect the tangible embodiment of the principles of legal excellence and merit. The government will continue to make future appointments on this basis.
The overriding consideration in all judicial appointments is legal excellence and merit. Further criteria include proficiency in the law, judgment, work habits, writing and communication skills, honesty, integrity, fairness and social awareness. While bilingualism remains an important criterion considered in the nomination process, it is not, and should not be, an overriding factor in the appointment of judges to our highest court.
Our current process allows the government to take into account the bilingual capacity of candidates and to address the need for access to justice in both official languages. We are committed to ensuring that the federal judiciary's linguistic profile provides equal access to justice in either official language.
I would also point out that before making an appointment, consultations with the chief justice of the relevant court are taken into consideration to determine the court's needs, including linguistic capacity. The chief justice is well positioned to understand the needs of the communities served and to identify particular needs where vacancies arise. We also welcome the advice of any group or individuals on considerations which should be taken into account when filling current vacancies.
To ensure a rich pool of bilingual judicial candidates, the government continues to invite the French-speaking jurist associations and French-speaking communities to identify and encourage individuals, with the necessary qualifications, to apply and to share their recommendations with the Minister of Justice.
While we fully agree that linguistic ability is an important factor when a specific need is identified, merit remains the central and overriding consideration in making judicial appointments. The government is committed first and foremost to appointing the best qualified candidates. The government will continue to appoint excellent and committed candidates reflecting gender balance, cultural diversity and bilingual capacity.
The Supreme Court of Canada plays a fundamental role in our democratic society, particularly as the ultimate guardian of the values enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is important that its members be jurists of great distinction and ability. For that reason, every care is taken to ensure that the best persons, by knowledge, experience and social awareness, are chosen to fill vacancies in the court.
The appointments to the Supreme Court over the past 130 years have proven to be successful in producing judges of the highest calibre for the court. Among the qualifies sought in potential candidates are outstanding intellectual capacity, superior ability in judgment writing, the capacity for innovative thinking on emerging legal issues, and sensitivity to the diverse values enshrined in the charter.
The eminent constitutional scholar, Peter Hogg, has offered the following description of the professional capacities and personal competencies of a Supreme Court of Canada judge as follows:
1. He [or she] must be able to resolve difficult legal issues, not just by virtue of technical legal skills, but also with wisdom, fairness and compassion.
2. [She] must have the energy and discipline to diligently study the materials that are filed in every appeal.
3. He must be able to maintain an open mind on every appeal until he has read all the pertinent material and heard from counsel on both sides.
4. [She] must always treat the counsel and the litigants who appear before [her] with patience and courtesy.
5. He must be able to write opinions that are well written and well reasoned.
6. [She] must be able to work cooperatively with [her] eight colleagues to help produce agreement on unanimous or majority decisions, and to do [her] share of the writing.
Canada can take pride in the quality of its judicial system and in the steps its taken to ensure its citizens have access to justice in either official language. The Supreme Court of Canada is a model of institutional bilingualism, which reflects the intent of Parliament that our national institutions be bilingual while not requiring bilingualism from each individual Canadian.
The government remains committed to ensuring quality and impartiality under the law. An important way to ensure such equality and impartiality is to continue to be guided by the principles of merit and legal excellence in the selection and appointment of judges to Canada's provincial, superior and federal courts and to the Supreme Court.
The risk of overriding merit for the sake of bilingualism is unnecessary. The goal of ensuring the rights of Canadians to be heard and understood in the language of their choice is already being fully met by the court. The court provides all of its services and communications in English and French. In addition, every individual who appears before the court is free to use either English or French in written and oral pleadings.
Ongoing language training is available to all members of the court. High quality interpretation and translation services are available during hearings before the court and all judges have the assistance of at least one or more bilingual law clerks.
The current composition requirements of the Supreme Court of Canada Act, together with the historical practice of regional representation, allows us to preserve our important commitment to legal pluralism--