Bill C-232 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages)

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.

Supreme Court Act

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-203, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act regarding the understanding of the official languages.

Fair and equitable access to justice is one of the basic tenets of democracy. That is what this bill seeks to ensure, by requiring Supreme Court justices to be able to understand arguments in both of our official languages and enshrining that requirement in law.

Supreme Court justices play a major role in our democracy. They need to meet numerous qualification criteria. One of those criteria is, in my opinion, the ability to understand Canadian citizens in both official languages, which, I will point out, have equality of status under our Constitution.

The NDP is not alone in thinking that. I would like to quote some people who know much more about this topic than me. For example, Serge Rousselle, a renowned Université de Moncton law professor, said:

Bilingualism is a required skill for Supreme Court judges. To fully grasp an oral argument in a field where the subtleties of one official language or the other can be critical, the importance of being understood directly by the members of this court, without the assistance of an interpreter, seems obvious.

This is not a theoretical question.

Michel Doucet, another Université de Moncton law professor and a language rights expert, has argued many cases before the Supreme Court. He said:

In the week after I had argued a case before the Supreme Court, I had an opportunity to hear the English version of my arguments on CPAC, and I understood why I had lost the case five to four. The translation did not allow me to understand my own words. I wonder how justices can fully understand the matter at hand when they have to go through translation in which significant aspects of a submission are missing. When you win 9:0, there is no problem, but when you lose 5 to 4, you automatically wonder whether you should not have argued in English.

That is why bilingualism is essential to ensure equal access to justice, and why judges of the Supreme Court, the highest court, must be able to serve all Canadians in either official language. Once again, we are not the only ones saying so.

In his report on access to justice, Graham Fraser, former commissioner of official languages, said that since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, it is crucial that its judges be able to understand all the information and arguments presented, in both official languages without the help of an interpreter, including the nuances that can affect the outcome of a trial.

Mr. Fraser also strongly supported Bill C-232, which had exactly the same objectives and which the Liberals supported at the time.

I am running out of time and I see that I am going to have to cut my presentation short. I would like to point out that the Barreau du Québec and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada support this bill, which is very important.

Our Liberal colleagues are telling us that they promised to appoint bilingual judges. There is a small problem. Our Liberal colleagues always seem to think that they will be in power forever. That is the first problem. At some point, another government could decide to do things differently.

There is one more problem. The member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun said that yes, we are going to appoint bilingual judges, but that we also need some flexibility to not do it. This too seems like a very Liberal thing to say. They make a promise, but they may or may not keep it.

I think this is one more reason to recognize that this is a fundamental issue of access to justice and that this needs to be put in law. This bill could certainly be amended, but I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it so it can go to committee.

Opposition motion—Appointments to the Supreme Court

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the appointment of Supreme Court justices, an issue of such importance that I even introduced a bill calling for these justices to be bilingual. I will have the opportunity to talk about that in my speech.

The motion calls on the government to take into account regional differences when appointing judges to the Supreme Court and to respect the custom of regional representation. I think that everyone in the House of Commons agrees with that, myself included.

The announcement that the Prime Minister of Canada made this summer caused much disappointment. Of course, we are happy that a committee has been set up to analyze judges' legal expertise and to ensure that they are bilingual and that they fully understand both official languages. Everyone was very pleased and the Prime Minister's announcement was met with praise on all sides.

However, my leader, the leader of the NDP, went to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to ask the minister what it means to be a bilingual judge. Does it mean that the judge can speak both official languages? The Minister of Justice vaguely answered that she did not know exactly what it means and that it may mean being able to understand but not necessarily speak both languages. That is very disappointing, and it is not at all the bilingualism that we expect of a Supreme Court justice.

We are very concerned about the Minister of Justice's response. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice will address this situation, because it is unacceptable. We must consider what the Commissioner of Official Languages asked for. He asked that justices have the language skills required not only to understand French and English and to speak these languages, but also to understand the legal terminology every Supreme Court judge should master.

Like the Conservatives, we believe that customary regional representation must be maintained, and that is why we are talking about the Atlantic provinces now. We also believe that judges must be bilingual and that there should be legislation to that effect. I will talk about that shortly. Most importantly, this government must not make the same mistakes the Conservatives made.

Unfortunately, two unilingual anglophone justices were appointed. Other blunders included appointing a unilingual anglophone officer of Parliament. The Liberals made similar mistakes, such as appointing a unilingual anglophone House leader and a unilingual anglophone Speaker of the Senate. The Liberals have had their share of problems and have not always made the right choices.

That is why I want to talk about my bill, Bill C-203, which would amend the Supreme Court Act and introduce a new requirement for judges appointed to the Supreme Court to understand both official languages in accordance with the language skills criteria defined by the Commissioner of Official Languages.

This is extremely important because, when it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices, regional representation is certainly a factor, but we must not forget that, under the Official Languages Act, both languages have equal status. Neither is superior to the other; both are equal.

In our courts, particularly in the highest court in the land, it is to be expected that both official languages should be equal, but that cannot happen if the judges are not bilingual.

We have heard stories, and I am going to share one with you. This really happened, and it is disturbing.

A few years ago, a justice began making his argument in French before the other justices present. The presiding Supreme Court justice suddenly asked him if he could slow down because the interpreters could not keep up. I should point out that one has a limited amount of time to present one's argument. If justices cannot present their arguments at a normal, regular pace, or if they have to slow down, of course this can be problematic.

The interpreters do a wonderful job. I want to commend their work, because I know we also have interpreters working in the House of Commons. We also did a study on the Translation Bureau, and I want to emphasize that the bureau as a whole is doing an excellent job, much like our interpreters. However, as the name states, there can at times be some interpretation of what is said. They do the best they can to interpret the message properly, but it cannot be a word-for-word translation of every point in every sentence. In any case, that would not make sense. Interpretation is a magnificent art, but of course it is the art of interpreting the message.

When faced with something as important as any matter before the Supreme Court of Canada, that is, something of such gravity and critical importance to the entire country, there is no room for even the smallest mistake or tiniest difference between what is said and how it is understood. That is why it is extremely important that all justices understand both official languages.

I want to point out that I introduced Bill C-203 to amend the legislation on appointing judges in order to ensure that they are bilingual. Before that, the NDP did a lot of work on this. My dear colleague, Yvon Godin, is well known by those who have been in the House for many years. He fought for years to ensure that the judges appointed were bilingual. He introduced a bill in June 2008. He started again in November 2008, and in 2010, he introduced the very well-constructed Bill C-232. It was more or less the same bill that I introduced. This bill was agreed to by a majority of the members of the House of Commons because the Liberals voted in favour of it. It ended up in the Senate, but unfortunately, the Conservative senators dragged out the process until the House adjourned and elections were called. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper.

The House did pass the bill, however. The elected members passed the bill. The Liberals are now in power and they are looking for any possible excuse not to pass this bill because it may be unconstitutional.

Why do the Liberals and my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, not refer the bill to the Supreme Court for an opinion? Is this bill constitutional or not? Let us ask the Supreme Court for an opinion.

When we asked the experts whether the bill was unconstitutional, they all said they could not say. We have to ask the Supreme Court for an opinion.

We know that, in the past, the Conservatives unfortunately did not always appoint bilingual judges. Therefore, if we want to ensure that we continue to have bilingual Supreme Court justices, we definitely must pass a bill. That is why this bill must be passed. I hope that the Liberals will take this bill seriously and pass it to ensure that regional representation will finally be mandated, and also to ensure that both official languages are on an equal footing. They must be equal, and one cannot be held above the other. Canadians, regardless of whether they speak French or English in Canada, must be treated equally before the law, especially since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land.

Supreme Court Act

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I admit that the first question that came to mind when preparing this speech was the following: should I be pleased or disheartened by the prospect of speaking to a bill that, for the third time, is attempting to introduce common sense? We agree that the bill introduced by my colleague for Acadie—Bathurst is based on common sense.

At a time when politicians sometimes have a bad reputation for being opportunists, making promises that they do not keep and changing their tune depending on which way the wind is blowing, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst is just what is needed to counter these hasty judgments or preconceptions. He is feisty and persistent, and he is not the sort of person to give up on his ideas when difficulties arise. Therefore, I wish to congratulate him for his efforts on behalf of the people he represents, the people of Acadie—Bathurst and especially, today, for his long fight for our country's two official languages and recognition of bilingualism in the federal government and Canada's major institutions. I am not referring to recognition just on paper, but in actual practice.

My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst has been a source of inspiration ever since I arrived in the House. When I was first assigned to be a member, with him, on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, he showed me everything that remains to be done in order to ensure that the spirit of the Official Languages Act becomes part of Canadians' reality. It is because of my colleague's efforts and his example of perseverance, that I have finally chosen to say that I am honoured to rise today to defend, with all the courage of my convictions, his bill, Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages).

His bill would change the Supreme Court and create a new requirement for the appointment of Supreme Court justices. It is a very simple requirement, if it is one at all: to be able to listen to and understand anyone who appears before the Supreme Court, in the language of their choice, whether English or French, without the assistance of an interpreter.

As I just mentioned, this is my colleague's third attempt at seeing this initiative through. This legislative measure was introduced for the first time in June 2008 and the same bill was introduced in November 2008. Those who have been here for a while will probably remember that it was then Bill C-232, which was passed by the House of Commons. I want to emphasize the fact that it was passed by the House of Commons. Today, here we go again. Something is not right.

The bill was passed on March 31, 2010, but the Conservative senators used their majority in the Senate to block it until the election was called in March 2011. This is another example of unelected people blocking a bill that was passed by elected parliamentarians in the House of Commons. I think this needs no further comment.

Let us leave the Senate aside for now and come back to the essence of the bill. Why is it so essential for a judge to understand both official languages? There are many reasons, but I will focus mainly on the two that I consider to be the most important.

The first is equal justice. The Supreme Court, as we all know, is the highest court in the land and its nine justices are sometimes called to sit for the same case. It is rather unthinkable that some of them might not have exactly the same understanding of the arguments being made as the others who listen to and understand both official languages. The witnesses and other participants can speak in the language of their choice. That is a recognized and properly applied right. There are no problems there.

However, it is important that the judges understand the nuances of the testimonies. In law, often everything lies in the nuances. Simultaneous interpretation has its limits. We realize that every day in the House of Commons. The House interpreters do a tremendous job, but it is never as good as being able to listen to each speaker in their own language and understand all the subtleties.

Judges being bilingual, therefore, helps ensure that francophones and anglophones have equal access to justice. It gives them the assurance, not only that they will be heard, but above all, that they will be understood. When a case is in its final stage in the legal process, the assurance of that right should be guaranteed.

The second reason rests on the duality of our body of law in Canada. In Canada, all legislation exists in both official languages. Let us understand each other clearly. No statute adopted by this Parliament is first written in one language and then translated into the second. Statutes are drafted in both official languages at the same time, with the subtlety of each language's vocabulary and with neither language taking precedence over the other. If we have therefore considered it to be right and proper to have that kind of legislation in Parliament, those called upon to sit in judgment in support of that process must have the same ability.

Why are we proposing this bill? The bill introduced by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is not before us in order to make the task of a Supreme Court judge even more complex. At the outset, I understand the traditional objection that we have heard each time this bill has been debated in the House. The question is always: will we be depriving ourselves of an eminently competent judge, who happens to have the disadvantage of being unilingual, given that simultaneous interpretation has all the limitations I mentioned just now?

My answer is very simple: yes. We should have to deprive ourselves of the services of a unilingual judge. To my recollection, we have never witnessed the appointment of a unilingual francophone judge. Please understand me. I am not saying that francophones have been treated differently. However, we have to recognize that, for a francophone, a knowledge of English is an essential part of legal training. It is precisely this fact that anglophones who aspire to a seat on the highest court in the land have to recognize. In Canada, French is an essential skill to qualify for that position. Period.

A prime minister who does not speak Canada's two official languages? Unthinkable. Well then, what about a Supreme Court judge? Should that not be just as important? Every time this bill comes up for discussion, it receives plenty of support across Canada. For example, the Barreau du Québec has repeatedly expressed its support for the bilingual Supreme Court judges bill. Here is what it says:

Bilingualism [it says] should be among a Supreme Court judge's required skills in order to ensure equal access to justice, and the Barreau du Québec's position in this regard is categorical.

Those words are strong, clear and precise. That says it all. Some might say that, obviously, Quebec, with its francophone majority, would want this. However, the same goes for other groups all over Quebec. For example, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne also supports this bill just as categorically:

The FCFA believes that all citizens have a right to be heard and understood before the highest court of Canada in their official language of choice...

It is really the notion of being understood that is at the heart of my colleague's bill.

Lastly, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has said several times that he believes that Supreme Court judges should be bilingual.

What is the NDP doing when it comes to official languages? Not only is the bill sponsored by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst an eloquent demonstration of the NDP's defence of the French fact, but we could also mention Bill C-315, which I had the pleasure of sponsoring and which deals with French in workplaces under federal jurisdiction, or that other bill that passed in the House and that now requires officers of Parliament to be bilingual before being appointed to the position.

In closing, I would say that, based on all the evidence, it is quite clear that the NDP is more than just the official opposition; it is also a party that makes proposals. We are a party full of proposals that, as I said in the beginning, make a lot of sense and speak not only to the spirit but also to the letter of the Official Languages Act.

The Supreme Court exists to serve Canadians, whether their first official language is French or English.

Unfortunately, I have to end it there, although I have so much more to say.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking today in support of the bill introduced by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.

It is a real pleasure for me to support my colleague's bill that promotes real equality in the two official languages of our country.

The bill amends the Supreme Court Act and introduces a new requirement for judges appointed to the Supreme Court to understand English and French without the help of an interpreter.

I am not perfectly bilingual but I am working very hard on my English skills. It is important for me to work at the House of Commons in Canada's two official languages.

A person who stands before judges in the Supreme Court of Canada has a right to be heard and understood in his or her mother tongue.

This bill promotes equal access to justice. The Supreme Court is Canada’s highest court and its entire membership is occasionally called upon to hear certain cases. For the litigants, the ruling can have serious implications. Unilingual judges must rely on third parties to understand oral arguments and written submissions, which can be problematic at times and result in poor interpretation.

While I have the utmost respect for translators, I think we need to recognize that simultaneous interpretation and translation have their limits. The bilingualism requirement for judges ensures that francophones and anglophones have equal access to justice.

It is important for me to speak about equality, equality between francophones like me and anglophones. People who want to work in the most important judicial institution in our bilingual country must respect our two official languages.

The equality of French and English in Canada has been recognized by the Supreme Court. Since Canada’s laws exist independently in the two languages, fluency in both official languages should be a prerequisite for appointment to the Supreme Court, just as there are other mandatory requirements that a candidate must meet before becoming a judge.

The Supreme Court is there to serve Canadians, whether their first official language is French or English.

Canada's laws are not written in one language and then translated; rather, they are co-drafted in both official languages, and neither language takes precedence over the other.

This means that the body of Canadian legislation exists independently in both official languages. It is therefore essential for Supreme Court judges to understand legislation as it is written, in its duality, so they might apply it in its entirety, without infringing on the rights of the litigants.

I would remind the House of a few important facts that are worth pointing out. In 2009, all of the Conservatives, including francophone Conservatives, voted against this bill at second reading when it was Bill C-232. They also opposed the bill at third reading in May 2010. Despite the Conservatives' opposition, Bill C-232 passed in the House of Commons in 2010. However, the Conservative senators used their majority in the Senate to block it, which is absolutely appalling, until an election was called in March 2011.

In addition to opposing Bill C-232, the Conservative government showed its utter contempt for francophones by appointing two unilingual judges to the Supreme Court.

The Prime Minister must respect equality too, but he does not do that. We really have proof that the government does not care about the rights of francophones in our country.

Having unilingual judges is problematic when deliberations take place behind closed doors, that is, without the assistance of an interpreter.

Judges always have to communicate their opinions, ideas, and knowledge in their second language. Consequently, they run the risk of being much less accurate when they are not bilingual. When all judges are functionally proficient in both official languages, everyone can use their language of choice.

By sending the message that bilingualism is not important, the government is discouraging young Canadians, including young western Canadians, from learning French. The government must instead work with its provincial partners to encourage French language training by improving immersion programs and increasing support to post-secondary institutions so that future lawyers can acquire solid skills in their second language.

A number of people agree with the official opposition, and I would like to share some of their opinions with the House. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has spoken out a number of times in favour of having bilingual Supreme Court judges. The Barreau du Québec has repeatedly expressed its support of the bill on bilingual Supreme Court judges. I quote:

Bilingualism should be among a Supreme Court judge’s required skills in order to ensure equal access to justice, and the Barreau du Québec’s position in this regard is categorical.

It is a fundamental right to be heard by a judge in one of the two official languages.

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne also supports this bill:

The FCFA believes that all citizens have a right to be heard and understood before the highest court of Canada in their official language of choice, without the assistance of an interpreter.

Serge Rousselle, a law professor at Moncton University specializing in language rights and past president of the Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick, also supports this bill:

Bilingualism is a required skill for Supreme Court judges. To fully grasp an oral argument in a field where the subtleties of one official language or the other can be critical, the importance of being understood directly by the members of this court, without the assistance of an interpreter, seems obvious.

I quoted a number of people whose opinions are similar to ours. I think it is very important for a Supreme Court judge to be bilingual. We must remember that people involved in the legal system have rights, have the right to be heard and, especially, have the right to be heard in the language of their choice—in their first language, whether that is French or English.

I would never put myself forward to be a Supreme Court judge. I do not have that ambition. I do not have the right education, of course, but I am also not bilingual. In a bilingual country like ours, someone who is highly trained and manages to become a judge, which is already a rather important and difficult job to get, also has the opportunity to learn a second language.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to express my support for Bill C-208.

This bill would amend the Supreme Court Act to require that only judges who can communicate well in French and English without the assistance of an interpreter be appointed to the Supreme Court.

I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who is the NDP's official languages critic, for the remarkable diligence he demonstrated in introducing this bill.

I mention his remarkable diligence because, despite the Conservative government's opposition to this bill, my colleague never gave up. He kept fighting to ensure respect for linguistic equality before the courts for all Canadians, especially those who live in minority francophone communities.

This is my colleague's third attempt since 2008 to get this bill passed. Let us not forget that, four years ago, this same bill, known then as C-232, passed third reading. Despite the opposition of all Conservative members, including francophone Conservative members, my colleague managed to get Bill C-232 passed in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the bill was blocked in the Senate by Conservative senators, some of whom were francophone, as incredible as that might seem.

The Senate and unelected senators blocked Bill C-232 until the March 2011 election was called. The bill would have protected the interests of Canada's linguistic minorities, but they let it die on the order paper. That is both shameful and an insult to democracy.

Fortunately, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst will continue to work tirelessly to protect the rights of linguistic minorities. I can guarantee that he has the support of all NDP MPs and that, together, we will continue to fight to ensure respect for our two official languages from coast to coast.

The NDP is not alone in this fight. My colleague's bill has been praised and supported by many non-partisan stakeholders. For instance, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has said several times that he believes that Supreme Court judges should be bilingual; he also supported Bill C-232 in the previous Parliament.

According to the commissioner, any litigant appearing before the Supreme Court should have the right to be heard and understood by all the judges in either official language without the aid of an interpreter. The Barreau du Québec, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, and a number of law professors also support the NDP's position on having bilingual Supreme Court judges.

However, the Conservative government has used every possible obstructive measure to undermine the NDP's efforts to have this bill passed, while claiming that they are looking after the language rights of French-language minority Canadians.

The simple fact that an issue of paramount importance like equality before the law is being raised in a private member's bill instead of in a government bill is an indication of how little importance the Conservative government attaches to the language rights of francophones.

In addition to appointing a unilingual anglophone Auditor General to Parliament, this government appointed two unilingual anglophone judges to the Supreme Court, Justice Rothstein and Justice Moldaver. In fact, there is a pool of highly qualified and fully bilingual judges, but the Conservative government pays no heed to that for partisan reasons.

The Conservatives seem to be forgetting that Canada was founded as a result of the hard work of two linguistic and cultural groups. Ignoring the right of francophones to have access to justice in their own language is betraying one of Canada's founding principles that is based on co-operation between the two linguistic communities.

Bilingualism and Canada go hand in hand, just like the traditions of British common law and French civil law go hand in hand. Denying the full equality of French in our courts is ignoring a fundamental principle of our nation. Our country's highest court must reflect Canada's bilingualism.

In addition to these matters of principle, there are also technical considerations with respect to the limitations of translation, which also point to the importance of having bilingual Supreme Court judges.

Surely it goes without saying that there are numerous nuances and subtleties in every language that can and often do get lost in translation. This is of crucial importance when matters of law and justice are concerned, especially at the Supreme Court level, the final court of appeal for all Canadians.

One significant problem lies in what Professor Ruth King, a member of the Department of Languages, Literatures and Linguistics at York University, refers to as code switches. Professor King defines code switches as sentences that use verbs to communicate opinions or belief. Statements such as “I think”, “I guess”, or “I believe” all work to underscore the speaker's stance or truth of the proposition and in some cases to indicate a degree of uncertainty.

King argues that terms such as these can be translated in French using words that can either enhance or diminish the degree to which the proposition is true. Based on her research, one can conclude that translators who translate between the French and English languages are likely to face problems in accurately conveying the meaning of a statement, not because those translators are bad at their job but because there are simply too many nuances and subtleties in both of our official languages to rely solely on translation when it comes to legal matters. Therefore, Canadians who have to rely on translation to make their case for justice are at an automatic disadvantage. The same applies to many other situations.

For example, if a test written in French is given to one who only speaks English, it is unlikely that person would be able to perform to the best of his or her ability, as relying on a translator would stand as an impediment. In 1998, Professor R.K. Hambleton performed a number of studies on the reliability and validity of tests administered across language and cultures. His research concluded that language did, in fact, play a significant factor in one's ability to perform well on a test. Hambleton suggests that despite the use of translators, when one is tested in a language that is not his or her own, the results are not an accurate representation of the person's knowledge.

Hambleton concludes that it is imperative for tests to be administered in one's native language in order to gain truly reflective results. Much like taking a test, trials rely on the interpretation of questions, by which judgments are based on one's response. If a question is answered incorrectly due to its interpretation, this poses a fundamental risk to the reliability and validity of a verdict. Simply requiring all judges to be fluent in both English and French can reduce such problems. By removing the language barrier, all Canadians, both English and French, will receive equal opportunities to a fair and reliable trial.

Therefore, the inherent limitations of translation requires judges to be able to communicate in both English and French in order to avoid any misinterpretations of vital information. Given the responsibilities and integrity of the Supreme Court of Canada, it is absolutely essential that any room for error be eliminated. If judges are required to speak both English and French as it is being proposed in this bill, the chance for misinterpretation might not be eliminated, but it would certainly be greatly reduced and go toward improving our trial process in the Supreme Court.

It is the responsibility of the House to ensure that the Supreme Court of Canada provides sound and equal treatment to all citizens of Canada. What is more, it is inexcusable to risk a Superior Court that cannot discern testimony with utmost accuracy and precision and fails to offer the optimal conditions for all those who seek justice.

In closing, I ask my colleagues from all political parties to rise above polarizing partisan divisions and make good use of this opportunity to restore the faith and respect Canadians once had for this great Parliament. As this House did with Bill C-419, let us work together to support this motion that seeks to uphold two of our most cherished, fundamental constitutional rights: equality before the law and equality of our two official languages.

I call on all members of the House, especially my Conservative colleagues across the way, to vote in favour of this motion and send the right message to all Canadians that we have respect for both official languages groups, that we have respect for those who are in minority situations to be understood in the highest court of law. I ask them to work with us to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for further deliberation.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as Liberal critic for official languages, following my colleague, the hon. member for Charlottetown and the Liberal justice critic, I am pleased to second Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), introduced by our colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

This bill would require that in the future anyone appointed to the Supreme Court have a command of both official languages and be able to understand them without the assistance of an interpreter. The bill is not retroactive and therefore sitting judges would remain on the bench.

Under the Official Languages Act, every federal court is required to ensure that the language chosen by the parties during proceedings is understood by the judge, or other officers who hear any given proceedings, without the assistance of an interpreter. There is one exception, though: the Supreme Court. In practice, this bill would put an end to this exception.

The Liberal Party has been a long-time champion of language rights, linguistic duality, and the exercise of the Official Languages Act.

The Liberals also have no problems supporting this bill, given that we introduced a similar bill ourselves, in 2007-08, during the 39th Parliament. This was Bill C-548, amending the Official Languages Act to extend the requirement to understand both official languages to justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. The bill was introduced by the hon. member for Bourrassa at the time, the Hon. Denis Coderre, the new mayor of Montreal. I recall that bill as I had the honour of being the leader of the official opposition at the time.

More than five years later, let us hope that this time will be the right time and that this Parliament will give French-speaking Canadians the assurance that they will be understood by the nine most important judges in our legal system.

And why would this Parliament not give that assurance to the country's francophones? Is it not high time to do so, 45 years after the Official Languages Act was passed?

Those who oppose this bill claim that the selection of judges must be a matter of competence only. However, adequate command of both official languages is precisely part of the competence required to be fully able to treat all Canadians fairly.

Both the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Minister of Justice confirmed that we now have a big enough pool of bilingual jurists from across the country who fully meet the appropriate standard of merit and legal excellence to appoint bilingual judges to the Supreme Court. Clearly, this pool will grow bigger every year if Parliament sends young Canadian lawyers the message that bilingualism is a requisite if they wish to reach the top of the Canadian legal system.

Our judges must always prove their worth in terms of knowledge of the law, judgment, work habits, ability to write and communicate, honesty, concern for fairness and social conscience, but they must also be bilingual.

We are not here to criticize the unilingual judges of the past, some of whom were great legal minds who did wonderful things for the cause of French and official language minorities in Canada. At one time we had British judges and they too did great things, but that did not stop us from wanting Canadian judges.

It is therefore reasonable to say that the judges of the past would have been even better equipped had they been able to understand the language of Molière or Vigneault.

The need is there. About 30% of the documentation that Supreme Court judges need to study is in French. Judges who cannot read French have to rely on the summaries provided by clerks, who are often talented but of course have neither the skill nor experience that a judge has.

During hearings, unilingual judges have to follow debate using simultaneous interpretation. No matter how good it is, there can be errors, misunderstandings or inaccuracies. When judges speak among themselves about cases before them, only one of them needs to be unilingual for all the discussions to, inevitably, be held in English, even for cases where most of the documentation is in French. In practice, French-speaking judges are required to write their drafts in English.

Opponents of Bill C-208 who state that requiring bilingualism would undermine the competence of judges must know that this is precisely the argument that was used against the adoption of the Official Languages Act. Parliament of 1969 did not let this objection stop it, and everyone takes the credit today. Therefore, let us be inspired by the wisdom of the members who came before us.

Not surprisingly, support for this bill is coming in from all sides.

Of course, the National Assembly of Quebec, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Graham Fraser, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, and the Quebec Community Groups Network all support Bill C-232. Also the Canadian Bar Association adopted a resolution in support of institutional bilingualism at the Supreme Court of Canada during its annual meeting in August 2010.

L'Association des juristes d'expression française du Canada de common law adopted a resolution in 2010 affirming its support for Bill C-232. The Quebec Bar Association supports this bill. In 2010, the president of the Young Bar Association of Montréal stated:

Functional bilingualism must be a minimum competency and not limited to being simply a consideration…

I would like to provide other support, but my time is short.

Voting for this bill is betting on Canada, a country that is lucky to have two official languages that are international languages, big windows on the world; a country that is lucky to have two legal systems, the civil code and common law, which allows it to share the legal traditions of 80% of countries around the world.

With this bill, we will ensure that this increased strength that our bilingualism and bijuralism bring us will become part of the highest court in our legal system and will help our Supreme Court become one of the most respected in the world.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to speak to Bill C-208, which was introduced by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst. I know how important official languages are to him and to the vast majority of francophones from one end of this country to the other, myself included.

To begin, I would like to congratulate him for bringing back this bill. I would also like to thank him for how passionately he defends our shared mother tongue and our country's official language minority communities.

This bill would amend the Supreme Court Act and introduce a new requirement for judges appointed to the country's highest court to understand both official languages without the assistance of an interpreter.

For the NDP, this bill is primarily about equality—equal access to justice and the equality of our country's two official languages.

As my colleagues have said, the NDP is the only party that is proposing meaningful action to promote and protect the equality of Canada's two official languages. It is also the only party that is proposing initiatives to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities.

Not only is this the member for Acadie—Bathurst's third attempt to get Parliament to ratify this principle, but this initiative is also closely aligned with Bill C-419 on bilingualism requirements for officers of Parliament, which was introduced by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent and received royal assent last June.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent on this unprecedented victory and all of his hard work on this file.

I hope the Conservative members have finally understood the importance of protecting language rights, and I hope they will support this important bill despite what we have heard today.

This is the third time that my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst has introduced this bill since 2008. The last time we debated it in the House, members passed it on March 31, 2010.

Why are we debating it again today? The answer is simple but distressing. Unelected, unaccountable senators in the Conservative caucus who do not represent Canadians blocked this bill for a full year until the March 2011 election. As a result, Bill C-232 died on the order paper.

That is another good reason to abolish that archaic and completely undemocratic institution. To all those who argue that the Senate and senators serve the interests of Canada's linguistic minorities, well, we can forget about that.

One important fact is that when Bill C-232 was passed in the House of Commons in May 2010, the Conservatives had a minority government. All the Conservative members, including the francophone Conservative members, voted against the bill. That is shameful. However, since the opposition voted to support the bill, it managed to pass in the House.

I do not need to paint a picture to explain to people that, considering that outcome, someone must have received a call from the Prime Minister's Office instructing the government's friends in the upper chamber to do everything in their power to throw a monkey wrench into the plans and obstruct the democratic will of this House, which is filled with the elected representatives of the Canadian people. Accordingly, we are trying again.

Many groups and individuals have expressed their support for the amendment to the Supreme Court Act that is proposed in Bill C-208.

Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, is one of them. When he released his annual report on November 7, 2013, he stated:

There have also been a few outcomes during my tenure that I would characterize as conspicuous failures. For example, the government failed to see the importance of having bilingual Supreme Court judges. I have given my support to Bill C-232, which sought to amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act, as I firmly believe that any litigant appearing before the Supreme Court should have the right to be heard and understood by all the judges in either official language without the aid of an interpreter.

Other stakeholders, such as the Barreau du Québec, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, the Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick, and Sébastien Grammond, dean of the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa, have said they support my colleague's bill.

They all agree that this is a matter of equal access to justice, and they acknowledge the importance of being understood in the official language of our choice by the highest court in the land, without a third party interpreting our words, which can lead to interpretations that are inconsistent with what was really said.

As a Quebecker, I would like to add that it is particularly important to my constituents that the highest court in the land understand both our national language and our civil law tradition.

I am troubled by the comments made by those who oppose this bill. Some believe that the condition of understanding both official languages without the aid of an interpreter would be an obstacle to appointing the best people to fill this role, those who merit the position the most. That argument would suggest that there are not enough qualified bilingual judges to serve as Supreme Court judges. That argument is simply wrong.

A study conducted in 2011 by professors Mark Power and Sébastien Grammond showed that, even if Quebec is excluded, 25% of the 124 judges who serve on provincial appeals courts and the Federal Court of Appeal can hear a case in French without the aid of an interpreter. Are we not capable of finding a judge in that group worthy of serving on the Supreme Court?

The NDP believes that to become a Supreme Court judge, one must have all the necessary skills, including the ability to understand Canada's two official languages.

Not only did the members opposite vote against Bill C-232, but the Conservative government appointed two unilingual judges, Justices Moldaver and Rothstein, to the Supreme Court. I do not know if that was out of partisanship or contempt for francophones, but it is clearly unacceptable, not just to us, but to all francophones in Canada, whether they are Quebeckers or members of a francophone minority community.

Even the new Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages has said that the appointment of bilingual judges to the Supreme Court of Canada is not essential.

As Chantal Hébert rightly said in an article entitled “Bilingualism at the Supreme Court for dummies” published in the April 2010 issue of L'actualité:

The fact is that refusing to make the ability to function in both official languages a selection criterion for Supreme Court justices makes English the main language of an institution...at the heart of public life in Canada...

If the Prime Minister had not been able to address Canadians in both official languages and had not rectified the situation in a timely manner, he never would have been elected Prime Minister. That might have been better for the country, but we will talk about that again during the election campaign.

The same is true for the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Employment and Social Development, since they are both in the running to replace the current Prime Minister after he loses the election in 2015.

I am already hearing grumbling from my colleagues opposite, who will probably try to claim that under the current system, a unilingual francophone judge could also be appointed to the Supreme Court. My response to that is simple. In more than 145 years, not once has a judge who speaks and understands only French been appointed to the highest court in the country. Never.

Never in Canada's history have we nominated a French unilingual judge to the Supreme Court of Canada. Never.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to address my colleagues who need an interpretation to understand what I have been saying in my mother tongue.

First, the laws of this country are not written in English and then translated. They are written simultaneously and independently in both languages.

Second, the Supreme Court of Canada is the very last legal recourse that a person has.

Third, as highly qualified as interpreters are, and here I would like to salute the House of Commons interpreters for their difficult and professional work, every language has its subtleties, particularly legalese.

Let me give an example. At a recent event, someone used the phrase “invités de marque”, which I would translate as important visitors or VIPs. It was translated as “Mark's guests”. That type of mistake, which completely changes the meaning of the sentence, could be costly in a court of law, particularly when it is one's last recourse.

I hope that my Conservative colleagues from Quebec will listen to reason this time and will remember where they come from. With the bill on bilingualism of officers of Parliament, they have already shown that it is possible to work together to promote Canada's official languages.

It is possible to do the same with the bill to require that Supreme Court justices be bilingual.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge privilege to co-sponsor the bill introduced by my colleague and, I would even say, my friend, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, and to speak to it today.

This bill would require that all Supreme Court justices be bilingual, which goes to the very heart of our democracy. Equal access to justice for all is a fundamental aspect of democracy. To ensure that everyone, without exception, has equal access to justice, justices of the Supreme Court—the highest court in this country and the court of last resort—must be able to hear arguments and read documents associated with a case or the evidence without the help of interpreters or translators.

Let us be clear. I have the utmost admiration for interpreters. Listening to something and interpreting it has to be one of the hardest jobs in the world. I have a particular fondness for translators, since I used to work in translation.

That said, even a translator would say that translation is the art of fudging. It is not an exact science. I have some real examples. Michel Doucet, a law professor at the Université de Moncton and an expert in language rights, argued a case before the Supreme Court. A few weeks later, by chance, he heard the arguments he had made in French being played in English on CPAC. Here is what he had to say about it:

The translation did not allow me to understand my own words. I wonder how justices can fully understand the matter at hand when they have to go through translation in which significant aspects of a submission are missing. When you win 9:0, there is no problem, but when you lose 5 to 4, you automatically wonder whether you should not have argued in English.

It is essentially a matter of principle. Canada's laws are not written in one language and then translated into the other. They are drafted at the same time in both official languages, and neither version takes precedence over the other. I think it is important for Supreme Court justices to be able to hear francophones in their own language, to read the law in that language and also to understand the tradition of civil law in Quebec.

We in the NDP are not the only ones saying so. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has said several times that he believes that Supreme Court judges should be bilingual. When he released his 2012-13 report, he stated:

There have also been a few outcomes during my tenure that I would characterize as conspicuous failures. For example, the government failed to see the importance of having bilingual Supreme Court judges. I have given my support to Bill C-232, which sought to amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act, as I firmly believe that any litigant appearing before the Supreme Court should have the right to be heard and understood by all the judges in either official language without the aid of an interpreter.

The Barreau du Québec has also repeatedly reiterated its support for the bill on bilingual judges:

Bilingualism...should be among a Supreme Court judge's required skills in order to ensure equal access to justice, and the Barreau du Québec’s position in this regard is categorical.

I mentioned Bill C-232 and said that the Barreau du Québec has repeatedly reiterated its support for the bill on bilingual Supreme Court judges because this is not the first time this subject has been discussed.

Indeed, in 2008, my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst introduced a similar bill, Bill C-232, which I mentioned a few moments ago, also calling for a bilingualism requirement for Supreme Court judges. This has been quite a battle. I did not have the honour of representing Laurier—Sainte-Marie at the time, when the Conservatives had a minority government. Finally, in 2010, despite the obstruction and opposition of Conservative members, including those from Quebec or ridings with large francophone populations, the bill passed. However, when it was sent to the Senate, the senators quashed it. I would like to make a very important point in passing in that regard.

Every time I hear that story or a similar one, it breaks my heart. It breaks my heart when democratically elected members vote in favour of a bill, then the Senate, whose members are appointed rather than democratically elected, has the gall to defeat the bill on purely partisan grounds, even though it deals with an issue as crucial as access to justice for all. This is fundamentally wrong and should not be allowed. It is yet another reason to abolish the Senate. The Senate is supposed to represent the regions, but how well did it represent Quebec and other regions where there are many francophones when it made that decision?

Finally, I would like to point out that this bill espouses the same logic as the bill on bilingualism for officers of Parliament put forward by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. I must say, in fact, that I take some pride in being a member of the only party that goes beyond empty rhetoric and takes concrete steps to better protect and promote our country's official languages.

Promoting and protecting official languages goes beyond the appointment of Supreme Court judges. If we send the message that people do not have to be bilingual to hold a senior position in the federal system, that being unilingual is perfectly all right, how does that encourage young Canadians to learn the other official language? Such a message would discourage, rather than encourage them.

What fate awaits that bill now, I do not know. The comments I have heard from the other side of the House have me very concerned. There have been other attempts to push for the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges. As my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst pointed out, if it does not work this time, we will make it work in 2015 when we form the government.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

moved that Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise for the third time in the House to speak to Bill C-208, which would require Supreme Court justices to be bilingual so that they can respond to Canadian citizens.

Thirteen years ago, on February 28, two hours before I made a speech in the House of Commons about taxes on mechanics' tools, I was thinking that my grandson Jonathan, who was born two days later, might one day use these tools if he decided to become a mechanic.

Today, as I wish Jonathan a happy birthday, I hope that my other grandson, Alexandre Matis, and my granddaughter, Lily Ève, will be able to be heard in the official language of their choice, which is French, if they ever need to go to the Supreme Court.

Today, my New Democrat colleagues and I are back with my Bill C-208, which would make being bilingual in French and English a new condition for appointing justices to the Supreme Court of Canada.

This is my third attempt to get this initiative passed. In 2010, this bill, known at the time as Bill C-232, was passed by the House of Commons. To my great disappointment, the Conservative senators used their majority in the Senate to block the bill. The bill then died on the order paper when the 2011 election was called.

The Conservatives have repeatedly shown their contempt for official languages by appointing two unilingual anglophone justices to the Supreme Court and by appointing a unilingual auditor general.

The NDP thinks that there is another way to do things. The NDP is the only party that is proposing concrete measures to promote and protect our official languages. Thanks to the NDP, the House recently passed Bill C-419, which corrects the Conservatives' mistake by ensuring that officers of Parliament will now have to be bilingual when they are appointed. It is time for us to make understanding both official languages an essential condition of being appointed to the Supreme Court.

I would like to speak to the importance of this bill. This is a question of access to justice. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, and it is very important that the justices be able to understand both official languages without the help of an interpreter. I have the utmost respect for the work of interpreters, but we know that interpretation has its limits. Numerous lawyers have noticed errors and omissions in the interpretation of their arguments before the Supreme Court.

I am thinking, in particular, about Michel Doucet, a law professor at the Université de Moncton, the former dean of the law faculty at the university and a language rights expert. He spoke to the issue when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages:

In the week after I had argued a case before the Supreme Court, I had an opportunity to hear the English version of my arguments on CPAC, and I understood why I had lost the case five to four. The translation did not allow me to understand my own words. I wonder how justices can fully understand the matter at hand when they have to go through translation in which significant aspects of a submission are missing. When you win 9:0, there is no problem, but when you lose 5 to 4, you automatically wonder whether you should not have argued in English.

There are many examples of questionable interpretation at the Supreme Court. A lawyer arguing his case before the court mentioned a Monsieur Saint-Coeur and the interpreter rendered it as “Mr. Five O'clock”. Even the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has weighed in on the importance of understanding the arguments presented without the help of an intermediary.

In June 2009, he told members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights:

Given the complexity and the extreme importance of the cases heard by this court, judges should be able to hear arguments presented to them without using an interpreter to understand nuanced and complex legal arguments.

According to Sébastien Grammond, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa, interpretation may lead to “loss of precision which, in some cases, can even involve the omission of certain sentences”.

This loss of precision can also be found in the documents submitted by the parties to the proceedings. These documents are not translated by the court. Unilingual judges must rely on the briefs prepared by court clerks, who are often young lawyers with little legal experience.

The presence of unilingual judges on the bench of the Supreme Court also poses a problem during closed-door deliberations without an interpreter. Francophone judges must always express their opinions, ideas and knowledge in their second language. Therefore, there is a risk that they will be much less precise.

If the justices can function in both official languages, everyone can work in the language of their choice. The bilingualism of judges is therefore a question of the equality of francophones and anglophones in terms of access to justice.

The bilingualism of Supreme Court justices ensures the equality of both official languages.

We have to remember that the Supreme Court has recognized the equality of French and English.

Laws are drafted in both official languages. Both versions have the same weight and neither one takes precedence over the other.

Our language duality is part of our Canadian identity. We have to embrace it.

Is there substantive equality when a francophone appears before the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court is not there to reward ambitious lawyers or judges. It is there to dispense justice for all Canadians.

Serving on the Supreme Court is not a right, but having fair access to justice is a right. Remember that the court is there to serve Canadians, not the interests of the judge.

The issue of requiring Supreme Court judges to be bilingual has been debated for several years.

I think it is wrong for francophones to have to make themselves understood by unilingual judges through the filter of interpretation, especially before the highest court in the land.

If Canada's two official languages are to be truly equal, it is important that bilingualism be an essential requirement when judges are appointed to the Supreme Court.

Lastly, my bill would ensure that the Supreme Court can serve all Canadians equally, whether their mother tongue is English or French.

The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, who is highly respected by all Canadians, has said several times that he supports requiring Supreme Court judges to be bilingual.

The Barreau du Québec has supported this bill for years now:

The Barreau has always believed that functional bilingualism should be among a Supreme Court judge's required skills in order to ensure equal access to justice, and it deplores that even today federal legislation has no provisions requiring that the nine Supreme Court judges be proficient in both official languages.

Many stakeholders in the official languages community support my bill, particularly the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne and its members:

The FCFA believes that all citizens have a right to be heard and understood before the highest court of Canada in their official language of choice, without the assistance of an interpreter.

Lastly, various linguistic rights experts have spoken out in favour of my bill, including Sébastien Grammond, Dean of Civil Law at the University of Ottawa, Gérard Lévesque, a very well-known lawyer for language rights, and Serge Rousselle and Michel Doucet, both law professors at the Université de Moncton.

Let me remind members that the NDP is the only party that proposes concrete measures to advance Canada's linguistic duality.

Bill C-419 on the mandatory bilingualism of officers of Parliament, introduced by my colleague, was passed by the House of Commons in 2013.

Let us not forget that the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre remained open thanks to the pressure that my NDP colleagues and I put on the Conservative government, which intended to close this centre, the only French-language marine rescue centre in Canada.

The Conservative government has not shown any respect toward our official languages. I want to remind the House that it is the Prime Minister who appointed two unilingual judges to the Supreme Court. It is also the Conservative government that appointed a unilingual Auditor General to Parliament. Even the minister responsible for official languages is not in favour of my bill. Her riding of Saint Boniface, in Manitoba, includes thousands of francophones. What an insult to that community.

I also want to remind the members opposite that this former bill, Bill C-232, was passed by the House of Commons in 2010.

All the Conservative members voted against that bill, even the members from Quebec and those who have francophone communities in their ridings, such as the members for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe and Madawaska—Restigouche. Despite the opposition of the Conservative members, Bill C-232 was passed by the House of Commons; however, the unelected Conservative senators, including a number of francophones, held up the bill until the 2011 election was called.

The majority of the members in the House of Commons, who were elected by Canadians, voted in favour of this bill, but the unelected senators defeated the bill. Do not try to tell me that the Senate stands up for linguistic minorities.

In closing, I ask the members of all the parties to support this bill so that it can move along and be considered at the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights. We must protect the equality of our two official languages and equal access to justice.

In particular, I am calling on the Conservative members from Quebec and the members who have francophone communities in their ridings, such as the members for Madawaska—Restigouche, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, and Saint Boniface, to pressure their colleagues to support my bill, which seeks to ensure that the Supreme Court judges are bilingual.

If the Conservatives thought that bilingualism was necessary for becoming an officer of Parliament, then there is no reason why they should not do the same for the judges who sit on the benches of the highest court in the land.

The bill is a matter of justice and equality.

It is a matter of justice and equality.

Canadians have the right—it is more than just a privilege—to appear before a judge at the Federal Court of Canada and be heard and understood in the language of their choice. The same applies to the Federal Court of Appeal. It should also apply to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country.

I was at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this week, and I asked officials from the Department of Justice whether there are enough bilingual judges in each province. If Canadians were to read the committee minutes, they would see that the response was yes. I then asked whether there are a lot of judges, and they said that there are enough.

I am waiting to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice tell us that the pool is not big enough, even though officials from his own department clearly told us in committee that it is a big pool. They told us that there are enough bilingual judges in every province.

I hope that the Conservatives will support my bill and bilingualism in Canada.

Senate Reform Act

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be speaking to the Senate reform bill.

First, let me say that I am very disappointed that the government has put up no speakers. I wonder just how important this bill is to the Conservatives if they have nothing to say.

As members know, New Democrats have long advocated for abolishing the Senate. This has been our position since the 1930s. Very recent polling shows that Canadians are open to having a closer examination of the value of the Senate in the 21st century and that we should carefully look at Senate abolition because it is achievable and it is a balanced solution.

The NDP believes that the Senate is a 19th century institution, an anachronism that is unnecessary in a modern 21st century democracy like Canada's. Senators only sit 90 days of the year and they cost taxpayers over $90 million annually. The Muskoka minister's $50 million pales in comparison. Democracies such as Denmark and New Zealand have long since eliminated their outdated senates. This decision was also undertaken many years ago by our own provincial governments. There are many who support the NDP position, including the premiers of several provinces.

For example, the premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, stated in May of this year:

I support abolishing the Senate. I don't think the Senate plays a useful role. I think that they've outlived their usefulness to our country.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty echoed Ms. Clark's comments:

We think the simplest thing to do is abolish it, and I think, frankly, to reform it in any substantive way is just not possible. We have one elected accountable body that sits in Ottawa for us in the House of Commons. I just don't think we need a second, unelected, unaccountable body.

Even Conservative-friendly premiers condemn the Prime Minister's recent patronage appointments.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said, “It takes away momentum for change at the provincial level and it will probably increase calls that we hear from time to time saying, 'Do we really need this institution?'”

The Senate has become a repository of failed candidates, party fundraisers and professional organizers. These taxpayer subsidized Conservative senators even torpedo legislation passed by the elected members of Parliament. We are talking about bills passed by elected and accountable members of Parliament, such as the late Jack Layton's private member's bill to ensure action on climate change. Also, there was the member for Ottawa Centre's private member's bill to provide affordable AIDS drugs to those suffering in Africa. Both bills were killed by the Senate.

Both of these bills were extremely important and valuable not only to Canadians, but to people around the world. These bills were an opportunity for Canada to shine on the international stage, but the unelected Senate trashed them and left Canadians wondering what on earth has happened to our democracy.

New Democrats would like to abolish the Senate.

In addition to what has already been discussed, this bill has some other problems. It restricts all senators appointed to the Senate after October 14, 2008 to a single, non-renewable nine-year term. Senators would never have to be accountable for campaign promises they made because they would not have to keep them, or for any of the actions that they had taken while in office.

Provinces and territories are given the opportunity to hold elections if they choose. These elections are at the cost of the provinces. The prime minister can then decide if she or he wishes to appoint the senators, but there is absolutely nothing holding the prime minister to appointing anyone who has been elected.

Several provinces have indicated that they have no intention of holding Senate elections. The Province of Quebec has been perfectly clear and called the legislation unconstitutional and said Quebec will launch a provincial court appeal if the bill proceeds without the consultation of the provinces.

The Conservatives and the Liberals seem intent on maintaining an antiquated institution that they have increasingly used for partisan purposes.

New Democrats understand that the Senate is unnecessary and does not serve to further our democracy in any way at all. We will continue our call for a referendum on the abolition of the Senate. In the meantime, we will work hard to expose the dangers that the Conservative agenda on Senate reform pose to the very fabric of our democracy.

Six years ago when the Prime Minister was opposition leader, he knew there was something wrong with an unelected Senate. He thought it was unfair. He called it undemocratic. He also said an appointed Senate, a relic of the 19th century, was what we had. He did not like how the prime minister holds a virtual free hand in the selection of senators. He promised that if he ever got the chance to be the prime minister, he would not name appointed people to the Senate. He insisted that anyone who sits in the Parliament of Canada must be elected by the people he or she represents.

However, the Prime Minister has turned his back on those democratic principles. Instead of solving the problem, he is becoming the problem. The Prime Minister now holds the all-time record for appointing the most significant number of senators in one day. Who are his appointees? The Conservative Party faithful: spin doctors, fundraisers, bagmen, insiders, people such as his former press secretary, his former Conservative Party president, his former national campaign director through two elections, and let us not forget the several defeated Conservative candidates who were rejected by the voters.

The Prime Minister has broken his promise to do politics differently. Not only does he play the same old politics, he plays them better than anyone else, and I mean that in a very negative way.

Last fall the Conservative-dominated Senate was used to veto legislation the Prime Minister simply did not like.

The climate change accountability bill was Canada's only federal climate change legislation. It passed twice in a minority parliament. It was good, solid legislation supported by a majority of elected MPs, legislation embodying the direction Canadians want to take. On November 16, 2010, the Senate defeated Bill C-311 at second reading. There was no committee review or witness hearings. Canada's only legislative effort to fight climate change was gone, killed by the unelected friends of the Prime Minister.

Now unelected Senators seem poised to do the same thing to the NDP labour critic's bill requiring Supreme Court judges to understand both official languages. Former Bill C-232 was duly passed by elected MPs in the previous Parliament, and is now Bill C-208.

Just because someone flipped pancakes for the Conservative Party of Canada does not give that individual the right to override the wishes of elected MPs.

Too often today's Senate is doing partisan work for public money. Speaking of money, Canadians are paying more and more for a discredited institution that does less and less at a time when people are dealing with a slow economic recovery, and the Conservative government is contemplating billions in cutbacks.

Maintaining the Senate costs Canadians around $90 million a year. While folks are looking for jobs and trying to make ends meet when their EI runs out, or scraping by on pensions that do not even cover basic necessities, senators are earning $132,300 a year for a three-day work week. Add in travel and expenses and each senator is costing us about $859,000 a year, all for an institution that will not play any relevant role in the lives of most Canadians.

I can think of a lot of things that do matter to people, such as creating family-supporting jobs, improving public health care, and building decent futures for our kids. Lining the pockets of party insiders just is not high on my or anyone's list.

Business of the House

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could seek the unanimous consent of the House of Commons to send a message to the Senate asking it to immediately pass Bill C-232, requiring Supreme Court judges to be bilingual. This bill was the first to make it to the Senate and it has been rejected by the Conservatives.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary may better understand this point of Bill C-232, which would require Supreme Court justices to be bilingual. Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, had this to say:

Every Canadian's right to use English or French in Canadian courts is one of the basic language rights set out in our constitutional framework.

Perhaps he should re-examine the reality of what he is attacking by not accepting the principle that Supreme Court justices must be bilingual.

Thus, the Reform Conservative government must stop blocking passage of Bill C-232 by the Senate out of concern for democracy.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Conservatives now have control of the Senate. They are further sabotaging democracy by, among other things, obstructing the passing of Bill C-232, which simply asks that Supreme Court justices be bilingual.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-232, which provides that Supreme Court judges should be bilingual and capable of hearing cases without the assistance of an interpreter. We are asking for this out of respect for Quebeckers, as well as all Acadians and all francophone Canadians. We are also doing so because the Official Languages Act provides that English and French have equality of status and use, and because the French and English versions of federal acts have equal value and one is not considered a translation of the other.

The right of any citizen to use French or English before Canada's courts is a fundamental linguistic right. The Official Languages Act already recognizes the importance of being understood without the assistance of an interpreter before federal tribunals such as the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.

It is also because of the problems that come with simultaneous interpretation, which does not allow enough reaction time to interrupt and ask questions, for the judge, the lawyers or even the litigants, who have the right to grasp all the nuances and subtleties of each respective language.

With regard to the principle behind bilingual Supreme Court justices, it is important to note that on May 21, 2008, the members of the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed the following motion:

That the National Assembly of Québec affirm that French language proficiency is a prerequisite and essential condition for the appointment of Supreme Court of Canada judges.

The Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, said: “Knowledge of French is important, very important. It is not a choice. And the message we are sending today to the federal government is that it is not optional”.

To know a language is to know a culture, a reality. And those who are called on to interpret that reality and make decisions that will have a very important impact on our lives have to know that reality through our language.

That is what Premier Jean Charest of Quebec said.

The Premier of Quebec is also of the opinion that “open federalism must ensure that judges appointed to the Supreme Court by Ottawa know Canada's two official languages”.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages also looked at the issue of comprehension of the two official languages by Supreme Court judges. In its fourth report, tabled in May 2008, it “recommends that the government ensure that the judges that they appoint to the Supreme Court are bilingual”.

Official Languages

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, usually we would celebrate International Day of La Francophonie on March 20. Unfortunately, the Canadian Francophonie does not have a lot to celebrate.

Since it came to power, the Conservative government has been determined to restructure our public service. And it is doing so without any concern for the impact these changes will have on official language communities. The Conservative government has wreaked havoc on Service Canada and is leading us in the wrong direction.

How can the Conservative government designate the Atlantic administrative region as unilingual when it includes the only officially bilingual province in Canada and when more than 450,000 people in Atlantic Canada speak French?

We see the Conservatives blocking Bill C-232 in the Senate. Yet it was democratically passed by the elected representatives in Parliament. The Conservatives are against the idea of bilingual Supreme Court justices, which means that the communities are being denied fairer treatment.

Language rights must be protected and respected, period.

I would like to thank the francophone and anglophone organizations that fight to ensure that the official languages are respected.

Opposition Motion—Representation in Parliament

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the opposition motion moved in the House of Commons by the NDP and to discuss the proposal to hold a referendum on abolishing the Senate. The question would be clear and precise: do Canadians want a Senate?

Earlier, my Conservative colleague said it was not feasible because we would have to reopen the Constitution. The Constitution was established some time ago. In a democracy, people evolve and change over the years. The Constitution was written in 1982, but people have changed since then, which is only natural. Parliament exists because democracy evolves. Every day, we debate certain bills and change Canadian laws because we are evolving and we need new laws adapted to the new changes in our country. The same is true for the Constitution.

Tomorrow morning, there could be a referendum in Canada and the majority of Canadians might vote in favour of abolishing the Senate. Earlier my Conservative colleague was saying that the provinces should agree. In my opinion, that would put a great deal of pressure on the provinces and the provincial governments.

Will we continue to hang on to an unelected Senate even if the citizens no longer want it? Canadians no longer want senators to be appointed by political parties and by the Prime Minister to please his political party. For example, when the current Prime Minister of Canada was in opposition, and even when he had formed the government but felt that the opposition had a majority in the Senate, he said that the Senate should never meddle in bills introduced by the government or the House of Commons.

This same Prime Minister has a majority in the upper chamber, in the Senate, and senators follow his instructions to the letter when elected members pass bills in the House of Commons.

In a minority government, although a majority of members of Parliament have voted for the bills, the Conservative senators in the other place turn around and listen to what the Prime Minister tells them.

Earlier, one of our Conservative colleagues said that Alberta senators are independent because the nominees are elected. Another hon. member asked earlier why they have a whip and a house leader if they are independent. What is the whip's job? I am certain that everyone knows the answer: to make them toe the party line.

There are two parties in the Senate—the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party—and two whips. There are party lines. When the Liberals had a majority in the Senate, the Prime Minister was distraught because he said he had formed the government and Parliament had passed bills, but that they were blocked in the Senate. Today, he is doing the same thing. Even worse, the Conservatives are abusing their power by appointing friends. The Prime Minister was against this way of appointing senators. He was against it.

This Prime Minister appointed Doug Finley, the Conservative national campaign manager; Irving Gerstein, the top Conservative fundraiser and chair of Conservative Fund Canada; Judith Seidman, the Quebec co-chair of the Prime Minister's leadership campaign; and Don Plett, president of the Conservative Party of Canada.

These are political appointments of the most extreme sort. Is that democracy? We send our young people to fight abroad so that other countries will have access to democracy and enjoy the right to vote, and so that laws will be passed by elected officials who are accountable to the people.

We are doing worse than that here in Canada. We do not have that kind of democracy. We pass bills in the House of Commons. Our rights are being violated. I was elected by the people of Acadie—Bathurst. I represent the majority of people in that riding and my rights are being violated. In fact, as soon as a bill leaves the House of Commons for the Senate, the Prime Minister issues an order that prevents the bill from being passed. Is that democracy?

Are we waiting for people to take to the streets to reclaim their democracy the way they are doing in Egypt and Libya? Canadians have elected MPs and those are the people that should be making the laws in Canada. But that is not what is happening. A group of friends was appointed to the Senate. Provincial premiers who lost their elections are appointed to the Senate as compensation. With all due respect, we saw this happen in New Brunswick. When Premier Hatfield lost the election in New Brunswick, he was appointed to the Senate. Political rewards are given to people who lose elections. People are thrown out of office by a democratic vote and the government turns around and sends them to the Senate until they are 75 years old. It is shameful.

Not very long ago, here in the House of Commons, we passed Bill C-311 on the environment. The Senate did not even review it. The Conservatives did not even debate the bill. They voted it down. Oh, but it is all right: it was an NDP bill. It was a fine thing to do. It did not make any sense.

That was the beginning of the end of democracy. The bill was not even debated.

Senators come to us and tell us we have to keep them there even though they have not been elected. They say that they are completely independent since the Prime Minister cannot remove them from their jobs until they are 75. They call themselves protectors of the regions and minorities and say they will ensure that politics do not interfere with what is good for the country. They will protect minorities and all that. But now they are going after minorities.

Like it or not, my Bill C-232 concerning judges in the Supreme Court was debated by the members in the House of Commons, and it was passed by a majority. That is democracy. However, the unelected senators have been sitting on their butts since April 2010 and refuse to even address the bill. The Senate has always fought to say that it would protect minorities and the regions, that it could study bills and if there were any errors, it could send the bills back with new ideas that it had added. It is improper for the Senate to reject bills from the House, especially if there is a minority government in power.

We did not see this problem in the past because we have had majority governments and the Senate typically had the same majority as the House, under the same government. So there were never issues between Senate decisions and those of the House. But now that there is a minority government, now that the majority of members are against the government, we are seeing all the little things that can go wrong. Now we see the dirty politics. That is what I call it.

If the Conservatives really believed in democracy, if they really believed in what they were saying, they would consult Canadians and ask them.

A survey was done in my riding. There were three questions: do you want to abolish the Senate; do you want the Senate to remain as-is; or do you want to modify it? Few people responded. Out of 89 people, 75 said that they wanted to abolish and get rid of the Senate, and 7 said that they wanted to modify it. No one wanted to leave it the way it is. I would be very happy to see a referendum and let Canadians say what they want to do about the Senate. I have no doubt that it would give us a starting point to work towards changing the Constitution, doing good things for democracy in our country and honouring our country so that we can be proud of what it represents in the world.