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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member who just spoke and the member who sponsored this private member's bill, I believe that all members can agree that the Supreme Court consistently demonstrates that it has the capacity to conduct its business at the highest level in both official languages and there is no indication that the court has provided less than the highest quality of justice.

There has never been any question that the quality of the decisions of our highest court is lacking or that there is a failure to indeed understand the law. Is the hon. member suggesting that the rulings of our Supreme Court are not impartial and objective when the justices use the interpretive services available? With the greatest respect, if this is the suggestion, then I must disagree in the strongest possible terms.

To the contrary, institutions such as the Supreme Court of Canada have enabled our country to forge an international reputation as a peaceful, democratic and stable society. The court is respected and admired all around the world and stands as a symbol of Canada's shared commitment to opportunity, fairness and the rule of law.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is concerned about the interpretation services at the Supreme Court and suggests his concerns are based on his experience with the interpretation service provided to this esteemed chamber. I do not think that the quality of interpretation, whatever the hon. member's concerns might be, is in any way relevant to this debate. The interpretation and translation services available at the Supreme Court are of the highest quality and the interpreters are professionals trained to capture the legal complexities of the arguments before the court.

No one can reasonably suggest that the judges of the Supreme Court are not able to fully appreciate and understand the representations made by lawyers during hearings. I am confident that the individuals appointed to the Supreme Court will continue to make an outstanding contribution to the work of the court and serve this country honourably. It is therefore essential that the best and the brightest be appointed on the basis of legal merit, excellence and personal suitability. Bilingualism is certainly an important factor to be considered prior to making an appointment, but must be weighed among many others.

I ask myself, would the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst like to see a highly qualified French jurist excluded from sitting on our highest court simply because he or she is not bilingual and does not possess the capacity to, in using the terminology of the hon. member, understand the subtleties of the law in the English language? I would suggest not. The hon. member's bill would do exactly that. It would exclude a brilliant mind from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada is in many respects a unique body because it usually sits collegially with all nine judges chosen from different regions of the country hearing some of the most important constitutional and legal cases of our times. Indeed, it was such considerations that militated in favour of exempting the Supreme Court from the duty imposed upon other federal courts in section 16 of the Official Languages Act in 1988.

I will again stress to hon. members the fact that this bill hinders regional representation by limiting the pool of qualified candidates in regions of the country where a percentage of potential qualified candidates capable of hearing a case in both official languages is not as high as in Quebec and in the member's home province of New Brunswick.

As the former president of the Canadian Bar Association said on the issue:

The CBA advocates appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada based solely on merit, and ultimately representative of the diversity of society as a whole. The CBA adds that bilingualism should be one aspect of merit in selecting candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court. Other qualities include high moral character, human qualities such as sympathy, generosity, charity, patience, experience in the law, intellectual and judgemental ability, good health and good work habits.

For all these reasons, I urge hon. members to oppose the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the House which, through the democratic process, has debated Bill C-232. This legislation is important for all Canadians using either official languages. My arguments can be summarized with the following question: do we accept the fact that our country has two official languages?

I also want to thank the members for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Hochelaga, Outremont, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Burnaby—New Westminster and Fundy Royal, for their comments.

I would like to correct something that the member for Fundy Royal said. He said that the member for Acadie—Bathurst had mentioned that interpreters in the House of Commons were less competent than other ones. I never said that, and the member should apologize. That is not what I said. I said that in committees—and this has nothing to do with the quality of our interpreters—when a person speaks rather quickly, like me, sometimes the interpreters cannot keep up with that person. They ask me to slow down. In committee, we often get messages from interpreters telling us that we talk too fast. They ask us to slow down a bit.

Let us imagine that we are at the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, and that a judge or a lawyer says that he did not understand something. This is the highest court in the land, in a country that claims to be bilingual, that has two official languages and that passes legislation in Parliament that is drafted in English and French. So, I am asking myself a question. When a judge has heard a case and returns to his office, does he take an interpreter with him to translate the French act, or to read the English legislation? Where is the justice here?

Four or five years ago, the current Prime Minister of Canada did not speak French as well as he does now. He has learned French, and I congratulate him for doing so. He knows that if he wants to serve our country, he must speak both languages. I will make no bones about the fact that, seven years ago, the NDP leader also did not speak French as well as he does now. He made an effort. However, the judges on the Supreme Court of Canada do not have to make that effort. They hear cases, but the citizens involved cannot go to the United Nations to appeal the decision. The Supreme Court of Canada is the last resort.

There will be a vote tomorrow evening. I am calling upon Parliament to support Bill C-232, which states clearly that the judge must be capable of reading and understanding the law in both of this country's official languages. Voting in favour of this bill at second reading means it will go to committee and there it will be studied and we will hear from experts. The Canadian Bar Association, the Association des juristes d'expression française du Canada, the Young Bar Association of Montreal, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Quebec Community Groups Network, and even the Premier of Quebec support the bill. They can see that it is a good bill. Why not study it in committee?

The Conservators choose not to. They do not even want it to go to committee. This is regrettable, coming from a government that claims to respect our two official languages. Even the Commissioner of Official Languages says it is essential to send a message. Even university spokespersons from Toronto say it would be a good thing. In four or five years, someone aspiring to a position on the Supreme Court will learn both official languages.

That would show respect for the two communities in our country.

I sincerely call upon the House of Commons for its support. This bill can be studied and then we will decide whether it will become law in this country, but let us give it a chance.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 6:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 27, 2009, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.