Bill C-203 (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 French and English without the assistance of an interpreter.

Supreme Court Act

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

moved that Bill C-203, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour for me to rise today to introduce and speak to Bill C-203, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act, understanding the official languages. I am very proud to do that today, and I will explain why in a moment. I am following in the footsteps of many others who came before me and fought for Supreme Court judges to be bilingual. I will talk about who the biggest champion of this cause has been. It is quite the challenge for me to continue this fight, but it is also an honour and a privilege to do so.

I am speaking today about my bill, Bill C-203, which has to do with the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges. In short, this bill amends the Supreme Court Act and introduces a new requirement for judges appointed to the Supreme Court to understand French and English without the assistance of an interpreter. I will explain why this is so important.

This legislation would provide everyone with better access to justice in the official language of their choice. I will come back to that to explain other aspects of this bill.

First, I will say that access to justice in both official languages is an important concept that affects every official language community across Canada. Ever since I was appointed official languages critic for the NDP, I have had the opportunity to travel all over Canada and meet representatives of official language communities. They tell me how important it is to have access to justice. Access to health care in one's language is also very important. Nonetheless, access to justice is one of the most important issues.

This issue has long been championed by the NDP. In fact, I followed with interest the work of an NDP legend. Of course I am talking about the former NDP member for Acadie—Bathurst, Yvon Godin.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, let us applaud him. The work that Yvon Godin did for this bill is incredible. For over 15 years, he fought and travelled across Canada to explain it, defend it, and to ask people to support it.

I hope the House will support this extremely important bill, which the Liberals have already supported on two separate occasions. Some hope remains. Unfortunately, there seems to be a little sand in the gears at the moment. I do not really understand why. I will explain this to the House a little later.

What I wanted to say is that Yvon Godin was a proud standard-bearer for the NDP. He was always proud to stand up for official languages and for the Acadian people. We owe him a great deal. With regard to the bill before us today, I owe him everything for all the hard work he did.

I would like to take a moment to quote a great passage from one of Mr. Godin's most impassioned speeches on this important matter. He said the following regarding everything that had been said previously:

That's troubling. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort in Canada. It is the last stage of the justice process for Canadians. For those who are judged, it's their future that can be ruined. That's why we [need] a justice system [that respects both official languages].

While Yvon Godin is synonymous with this fight, a number of other stakeholders have defended bilingualism in the Supreme Court. I am thinking of people like Justice Michel Bastarache, who is also a fierce defender of linguistic rights in Canada, and Michel Doucet, a legal expert and director of the International Observatory on Language Rights. The former commissioner of official languages, Graham Fraser, who also did a huge amount of work on this and whose first term was renewed, spent about 10 years defending official languages. He should be commended for his work. I am also thinking of other official language commissioners across Canada. There are also a number of francophone associations that represent communities.

I must salute, encourage, and say thanks for its support to the Quebec Community Groups Network. When I remember that, I think again about Yvon Godin, who worked here and who expressed himself so well. He turned red because he was passionate. He shouted and expressed himself.

He was very dedicated to the cause and I must thank him for his support, as I thank everyone who supports this bill. That shows why it is so important. Yvon Godin calls me from time to time, gets me going, and gives me an earful. In fact, he is still very passionate because he knows what he wants to achieve. He knows what it is like to defend the official languages. We need to agree, but we also have to fight to defend the official languages across the country. We do not have a choice.

Why did we introduce this bill concerning the equality of access to justice? Why introduce a bill that requires Supreme Court justices to understand both official languages? It is to ensure equal access to justice in both official languages. The bill promotes this equality. It is important to understand that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, as Yvon Godin said. It is the court of last resort for all Canadian jurisdictions. The judges hear cases that can be very important and very complex. As I mentioned, the court's decision can have serious consequences for the parties involved. Yvon Godin said that it could even ruin the life of the person appearing before the Supreme Court. That is why the decisions can have very serious consequences.

Unilingual judges depend on a third party to understand the oral arguments and written submissions, which has negative consequences. Simultaneous interpretation and translation have limitations. We understand that when people provide simultaneous interpretation, they are not translating word for word. That would be impossible. They are interpreting what is said. They do excellent work. I commend all the interpreters and translators who work here in the House of Commons. It is a big and very complex job that requires a lot of skill. However, the interpreters cannot render all the nuances and subtleties of the arguments, and that is to be expected.

The ability of judges to understand both official languages thus promotes the equality of francophones and anglophones and is essential to ensuring that Canadians have access to justice in both official languages.

A document written by Sébastien Grammond and Mark Power provides a good explanation of why bilingualism and an understanding of both official languages is an essential requirement. The ability of Supreme Court judges to understand both official languages is not an asset; it is an essential qualification.

In fact, the oral arguments, being able to understand what is being said, that is not the only problem: there is also all the supporting documentation that is submitted in one language or the other. These documents are not translated. At the Supreme Court of Canada, how can a judge make such important and crucial decisions if he or she does not have access to all the documents pertaining to the case?

Furthermore, certain decisions were made in certain provinces where the cases are heard in French. Some judges therefore do not read these documents that refer to previous cases that sometimes have become jurisprudence, in one language or the other. One cannot do without understanding both official languages, such expertise is essential.

We must also keep in mind that in Canada both official languages are equal. There is not just one that is English and the other that is translated French. Both languages are equal. This is important to remember. The Canadian Constitution, the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensure this equality between the two languages. It is important to remember that.

As I mentioned, this bill has already been tabled several times. In the past, we had the support of the Liberals. We hope to have their support once again. I hope we have it again this time. This bill is the result of all the work that the NDP has already done on respect for the official languages.

We are also very proud of our former colleague Alexandrine Latendresse, who represented the old riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent in Quebec City. She has done excellent work on the bill on the bilingualism of officers of Parliament. The NDP worked very hard on this issue, given that there were unilingual appointments to key parliamentary positions, such as the auditor general, the chief electoral officer, and the privacy commissioner. There are 10 key positions of this type. We have worked very hard to protect the official languages and to make sure that the people appointed to these 10 positions can speak both official languages and have the required language skills. We need to avoid repeating the past mistake of appointing unilingual judges.

The current Chair once told a judge that he was presenting his arguments too quickly and that the unilingual judge could not understand him. This is what we are talking about when referring to the equality of both languages. No one would ask an English-speaking judge to speak more slowly. Why then would we ask that of a French-speaking judge? Judges have a limited amount of speaking time to make their case. A judge cannot be put at a disadvantage relative to another. Both languages need to be equal in this regard.

As I said, many stakeholders support this bill. Earlier, I mentioned a number of official languages commissioners, including Graham Fraser; the Barreau du Québec; the FCFA; the president of the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française du common law; Serge Rousselle, former law professor at the Université de Moncton; Michel Doucet, law professor at the Université de Moncton; Sébastien Grammond, dean of the civil law section at the University of Ottawa; Claude Provencher; and Jean-Marc Fournier, Quebec's minister for Canadian relations. I could go on. This bill has the unanimous support of official language communities.

The Liberal government recently tried to throw a wrench into the works by saying that there is already a policy, that only bilingual justices will be appointed under the current government and so there is no need for a bill, and that the Nadon reference could mean that no new judicial appointment criteria can be introduced without opening up the Constitution.

I will address all of those points. First, the Liberal government will not be around forever. We hope its time will pass. We hope it will be replaced by a government that represents not only the interests of the very wealthy, but also those of all Canadians. That government, one that may be in power soon, is an NDP government.

Second, the Nadon reference focused exclusively on the requirement for a Quebec judge. There have in fact been changes to requirements for Supreme Court appointments. For example, there never used to be a requirement for 10 years of experience as a member of a bar, but it was added, and nobody said it was unconstitutional. That means it would not be unconstitutional to add a requirement to understand both official languages without an interpreter. That is what one expert, Sébastien Grammond, told us on Tuesday. People need to understand that.

In closing, I realize that legislative and judicial bilingualism are still a challenge in Canada. However, significant strides have been made, while more remains to be done. We need strong legislation in order to ensure that only judges who understand both official languages are appointed to the Supreme Court. That is why I am asking everyone to support my bill.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague and friend from Drummond for his passionate speech.

I understood him to say that the Liberals have twice supported a bill of this sort. It is, of course, long been a policy of the NDP, which he alluded to in his remarks.

I am proud that I was involved when we appointed Mr. Justice Rowe of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal to be our first Supreme Court judge from that province. The member also said the requirement that the Liberals imposed upon him, albeit by policy, was that he be functionally bilingual, and of course they demonstrated that clearly during the appointment process.

Why could it be that the Liberals, with this policy that we support requiring functional bilingualism as a condition for appointment to the Supreme Court, might be reluctant to follow-through on the support that they have provided to similar bills in the past?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that great question and for the excellent work he has been doing for several years now with the NDP. I am very pleased to work with him and to see him meeting all these challenges.

Indeed, it is ridiculous that the Liberals are even considering voting against this bill. They already have a policy that requires people appointed to the Supreme Court to understand both official languages without an interpreter. We are simply asking that that policy by enshrined in law. This is no different than what has already been done.

Also, this is not unconstitutional, as shown by legal expert Sébastien Grammond in his most recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Official Languages. He said that the only thing that was determined in the Nadon reference was the condition whereby there must be judges from Quebec. That was all. Everything else is the purview of Parliament. It is not a constitutional matter. Sébastien Grammond even said that a condition was added to require 10 years of experience as a member of the bar. No one said it was unconstitutional.

Therefore, adding to the act a condition requiring the person to understand both official languages would be well received, and a credit to Parliament.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite just showed that the bill is not required because, as he said himself, there already exists a policy on the ability of judges to function in both official languages.

Aside from that, I am also wondering how he can evaluate the judges' level of bilingualism. What is his definition of the ability to function in both official languages?

Expertise is an important quality we look for in candidates, because we must safeguard the rule of law.

How does my colleague reconcile these two aspects?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals might think that they will be in power forever, but that is not true.

They can say that judges will be bilingual as long as they are in power, but one day, you will be defeated and we may perhaps have a government that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order, please.

I would remind the member to address his comments to the chair and not directly to another member.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize. In the heat of the moment I completely forgot this very important rule.

I would like to come back to the important points. At present, this policy is not enshrined in legislation. A policy can be followed one day and not the next because there are no consequences. However, a bill provides for regulations, its implementation, and important standards to be followed.

Everyone is asking for a bill because they are saying that a policy is not enough. We need to go further and enshrine it in law.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-203, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages).

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that Supreme Court justices are able to understand both of Canada’s official languages, French and English, without the assistance of an interpreter. The bill proposes to amend the Supreme Court Act to make the capacity to understand both official languages an additional statutory requirement for eligibility for appointment to the court.

We believe in the purpose behind Bill C-203. The esteemed judges who serve on Canada’s Supreme Court, a national judicial institution and the highest appellate court in the land, should be functionally bilingual, so that litigants appearing before the court are able to use the official language of their choice. It is how best to achieve that laudable purpose which we are debating today.

Our government made it clear that we would only appoint Supreme Court justices who are functionally bilingual. The Liberal Party electoral platform of 2015 regarding Supreme Court appointments reads as follows, “We will ensure that all those appointed to the Supreme Court are functionally bilingual.”

This commitment is also clearly set out in the mandate letter of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. In that letter, the Prime Minister indicated that it was imperative that the process of appointing Supreme Court Justices be transparent, inclusive and accountable to Canadians, and that those appointed to the Supreme Court be functionally bilingual.

What is more, our government publicly reaffirmed this position many times. I would like to emphasize that our commitment to that goal is not simply a matter of words. Our government has taken positive and concrete steps towards achieving that end. Following the Prime Minister's announcement in August 2016, this government established the independent advisory board for Supreme Court of Canada judicial appointments.

The Prime Minister gave that advisory board the mandate to make a list of three to five functionally bilingual candidates and asked it to submit the list for review in order to fill the vacancy left when Justice Cromwell retired.

Furthermore, enacting expeditiously upon the shortlist of potential candidates drawn up by the board, and in consultation with the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister recommended for appointment to the court Justice Malcolm Rowe. Justice Rowe is not only a highly respected jurist, he is also, we are proud to emphasize, the first judge ever to be appointed from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As Justice Rowe demonstrated during his appearance before parliamentarians gathered at the law faculty of the University of Ottawa before he was sworn in, he is evidently functionally bilingual, thereby satisfying our government's selection criteria for this most important position.

This government's policy of appointing functionally bilingual judges to the Supreme Court will ensure in the future that eventually all of the nine judges on the court will be able to understand counsel pleading cases before them in the official language chosen by each party without the aid of an interpreter. To the extent that any of the current justices on the court, who were appointed before the new policy was put in place, are not yet functionally bilingual, I believe that all of the judges are personally committed to learning, achieving, and maintaining fluency in both official languages, and they have language training and resources available to assist them in that regard.

It is a constitutional right for everyone to use either English or French in hearings, pleadings, and any other process before federal courts established by Parliament, including the Supreme Court of Canada. The court makes every effort, as a federal judicial institution, to facilitate and encourage litigants and counsel to use either official language. Our government’s policy will enhance that institutional effort and responsibility by ensuring that, over time, all of the judges of the Court are functionally bilingual.

Indeed, the government intends to consider the place of functional bilingualism in the judicial appointments process more broadly in response to the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages for federally appointed superior court judges. This is something the government will undertake in consultation with the provinces and territories as well as the provincial and territorial bar associations and the courts themselves.

In other words, the composition of the Supreme Court, including the eligibility requirements for appointment, may very well be constitutionally entrenched and thus beyond the reach of legislative measures enacted by Parliament acting alone.

Under the circumstances, to proceed with Bill C-203 at this time, in light of the evident constitutional concerns its enactment would raise, would be, in the government’s respectful view, unwise and ill-advised. If enacted, Bill C-203 would provoke needless controversy and very probably, protracted litigation.

It might also undermine the efforts this government has made, in consultation with this House and its committees, to advance the policy of functional bilingualism to which this government is committed.

I urge all members to support the government’s strategic approach and to take note of its commitment to applying this policy to future appointments. The government's approach will ensure the appointment of functionally bilingual candidates to the Supreme Court.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and address Bill C-203. I understand that the government is going to be opposing the bill, which means it will likely pass, given tonight's precedent. Nonetheless, I will be speaking against the bill. I have a number of concerns about the bill that I would like to discuss, and I will go through them one by one.

First, I do not see the necessity of this legislation. Of course, it is desirable to have Supreme Court judges and public officials who can speak in both official languages, but in places like the House of Commons, the Supreme Court, and elsewhere, we do have access to translation. This ensures that whatever arguments are being made can be heard and responded to and that those who are participating in those discussions can hear as well. We have not heard complaints about things that are happening at the court, given the availability of these kinds of facilities.

It is not clear to me what problem the bill seeks to solve. Again, in this age, with the availability of the technology for that, it is not necessary to impose this additional requirement. However, as I will discuss, I think there are some definite downsides associated with the imposition of those requirements.

Right out of the gate, I do not see the argument for the necessity of the bill, in part because of the availability of translation and also because there is certainly an availability of training and intensive training. I think it would be important and valuable for those who are appointed to the court, as well as members of Parliament, to take the opportunities that are available to improve our proficiency in the language that we may not have grown up with. Many of my colleagues take advantage of the opportunities to learn French while we are here. There are many members of Parliament who may come here not knowing another language at all but after a few years are very proficient in it.

I speak a little French and I believe that I have improved my French in the year that I have been an MP. Obviously, it is not perfect, but it is good to have an opportunity to speak French in this place. It is the same for the court. There are opportunities for judges to practice and improve their language skills by putting them to use.

Given those opportunities and given the availability of translation, I do not see the necessity to introduce this additional requirement. There are some real practical problems with it.

Of course, it is no secret that the use of language varies widely, depending on where we are. There are some regions of the country which are more bilingual. There are other regions of the country where there may be languages other than French or English that we hear used quite commonly and more commonly than one of Canada's official languages. I come from the province of Alberta. There is a great deal of use of other languages other than English and French, and that is part of our history of having settlement by people from all over the world.

There might be a person who had mastered a number of languages, who had not yet mastered French but was open to learning it, who was an appropriate person to be appointed. This provision would prevent that person from being appointed as a Supreme Court judge.

If there were a vast pool of available people, and we were excluding a few of them on the basis of this requirement, that would be one thing. However, the reality is that from some regions of the country, there would not be a very large pool of people available who would also meet the other kinds of requirements that we would like to see from a Supreme Court judge.

We would really be narrowing that pool and forcing the government to make an appointment. Putting that emphasis on language would make it much more difficult to weigh out a full range of other criteria. Perhaps proficiency in both languages should be part of that criteria, but it should not be a deal breaking criteria that would prevent the appointment of the most eminent legal scholar who was also prepared to undertake the necessary studies after appointment in order to improve his or her knowledge of a different language.

I just do not think that would make sense. What, after all, are we aiming for? We are aiming for an effective justice system, the best possible judges, and certainly that to exist in an environment where discourse can occur in both languages. That can be facilitated through translation. However, this requirement really limits the ability to appoint the person any particular government may view as the best applicant, the most appropriate applicant to put in place.

There is another point I want to make around this as we consider the weighing of different criteria, which is that inadvertently the ability to create a more diverse Supreme Court may be restricted through this legislation. When we are talking about diversity, there is a range of different criteria that might be looked at. If we are looking to have a more ethnically, culturally, and regionally diverse Supreme Court, there might be a very strong applicant who had been an immigrant or who had studied what was for them the language of their parents or grandparents, or had focused their efforts on learning other languages that were perhaps more likely to be used in the region in which they find themselves.

To exclude that kind of a person from a Supreme Court appointment on the basis of this criteria actually limits the diversity of our court. It actually means that we could not have a person who had that kind of experience. That is not to say there are not people who come from the full range of possible countries to this country who do become bilingual, but it is a matter of how this bill effectively narrows the pool. It means choosing from a much smaller group of available applicants, which makes it that much more difficult to look for that kind of diversity that I think a lot of people here would like to see reflected on our court.

Again, this just speaks to different regional realities. In Vancouver, we are probably much more likely to hear Cantonese or Mandarin spoken than to hear French spoken, although of course there are French speakers there. That reality varies depending on where we are in the country. While there may be a great deal of available people who are appropriate to a point and who are bilingual, in some regions of the country, we are looking at a much smaller pool of people where French is less likely to be used.

Certainly, it is important that we encourage the use of both official languages, that we encourage people to learn both official languages, if they are able to. I think my daughter Gianna is watching, and we are already trying to teach her French, even though she is only four, and she is doing a great job, but this is not necessarily reflective of everybody's experience, that everybody has had the opportunity to learn to speak both official languages.

I congratulate the member on bringing this bill forward, but I have to be frank about these concerns that we need to think about as we proceed with this discussion. The reality, again, that we have the availability of translation, that it is certainly possible to have the discourse proceed, as it proceeds in this House, with translation, and as well the availability of training opportunities makes it easier for judges to learn French or English, whatever language they may be less proficient in after their appointment. These opportunities exist. Certainly, members of Parliament take advantage of them, and judges can take advantage of them and I am sure do, as well.

Also, the limiting of the pool of available appointees that comes with this proposal is particularly concerning. It raises significant questions in specific regions of the country where there just may not be that many people available to appoint who have the kinds of qualifications we want to see and also meet the language test that this bill would establish.

Those are some concerns I have. I look forward to following the rest of the debate.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to rise in support of Bill C-203, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act. I salute my colleague from Drummond for his tireless work in this regard, following in the footsteps of, I dare say, the famous Yvon Godin, who was passionate about this in many Parliaments in the past.

I want to talk about what the bill would and would not do. The bill does not even require technically functional bilingualism. All it requires is that a justice understands the other official language without the assistance of an interpreter.

I congratulate the Liberals sincerely for their current policy, which requires functional bilingualism as a condition. When former prime minister Kim Campbell was asked to chair the advisory board that led to the appointment of our first justice from Newfoundland and Labrador, I was pleased to see that process in action. The committee could only consider those who were functionally bilingual, and Mr. Justice Rowe demonstrated that aptitude very clearly.

This issue has long been championed by the New Democratic Party. We introduced similar bills in 2008, 2010, and 2014. This is our fourth time trying to see this legislation pass. Each iteration of the bill has aimed to promote positive measures to protect official languages through legislation.

The government representative today quite properly pointed out, with pride, that the functional bilingualism requirement was merely a matter of policy, and perhaps with unintended arrogance said that was fine so long as the Liberals were in power. Things change even in Canada. Sometimes we have other governments and therefore no longer would this be something we could point to with the pride that the Liberals obviously take in the initiative they passed in the last while. The policy is good, but it does not mean it will necessarily be in force in the future.

It was also pointed out by our colleagues opposite that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Nadon judgment was somehow an excuse, dare I say a smokescreen, for not proceeding with legislation. I point out that Professor Sébastien Grammond of the University of Ottawa has written persuasively, at least to this lawyer, that if we have requirements, as we do for number of years at the bar before eligibility for appointment, there is no reason why we cannot have requirements for language proficiency for that appointment.

We are talking about six people in Canada. Three of those judges are required by law, for understandable excellent constitutionally relevant reasons, to come from the province of Quebec where there is a civil law system. I can assume that three of those nine will speak both languages or certainly be proficient in the French language. There has never been a justice on the Supreme Court who only spoke French. The six left of the nine are all the people we are talking about.

I taught law at the University of Victoria for over 12 years, the farthest west one can get in our country. I can assure the House that students understand the reality of the country. They understand, since bilingualism and biculturalism a generation ago, that we have a commitment as Canadians to respect each other's official languages. That is why we have an Official Languages Act and a commissioner. It is high time we have our courts at the highest level reflect that reality as well.

I had many students whose first language was Punjabi or Mandarin. Some even spoke indigenous languages. They understand that in this day and age, being one of those six people drawn from predominantly English speaking provinces, that speaking the other official language is not exactly a radical step in 2017.

To their credit, the Liberals understood that with their policy of functional bilingualism. For reasons I cannot fathom, they somehow are afraid to put that commitment into law. That is all this bill would do. I could even argue that the bill does not go as far as the Liberals' current policy. Their current policy requires functional bilingualism, which to me connotes being able to speak and understand the other language. All Bill C-203 would do is require that a judge understand both official languages without the assistance of an interpreter. It seems to me a necessary first step to do this, and the Liberals reluctance is quite frankly disturbing.

It has also been said that somehow this is inconsistent with the rights of indigenous people. We can certainly ensure at committee that there is no such intent or effect in the law. This law would confirm that indigenous rights that are guaranteed under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 remain in full force and effect and are in no way derogated by the legislation that would be enacted should the bill proceed.

I do not believe therefore that there is a practical problem with a bill of this sort. My colleague from Drummond made reference to a number of organizations that have supported this over the years. I did not hear the Canadian Bar Association protest when the Liberals brought in a functional bilingualism requirement. It is a fait accompli in the 21st century that people would understand this reality of our country.

It is particularly relevant for Canadians who are members of language minority communities that they feel comfortable using the official language of their choice before our highest court of the land. Professor Grammond and Mark Power captured this conundrum in a paper they provided to the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen's University. They wrote, “Francophone litigants before the Supreme Court face a challenge that is not shared by their Anglophone counterparts: to attempt to persuade judges who do not understand the language in which arguments are presented.”

It is crucial that the Supreme Court serve all Canadians, and that they believe their arguments were truly understood by the justice who heard them. It is not acceptable that they would argue that they lost a particular case on the basis that they were not truly understood. That cannot be right in a country committed to bilingualism and biculturalism, such as ours. That cannot be just. We all feel when we lose a case in the court that it must be because we were not understood. I understand that argument. However, that a number of senior scholars and lawyers would go in print and say they are concerned about this should be of concern to all Canadians.

The time has come for us to essentially go beyond policy and do what has been sought so many times in previous parliaments, by Mr. Godin, and now by the member for Drummond. It is something that the late Jack Layton, leader of the NDP, was passionate about and made many speeches about. It is something that has been the subject of resolutions at conventions in our party, and of course in platform commitments we have made over the years.

It is time for the government to re-evaluate its position, not hide behind a smokescreen of a Supreme Court decision, and decide that it truly is committed to bilingualism at the highest level of our courts so justice can truly be done for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, I humbly admit that having the opportunity to speak to such an important bill is truly an honour.

However, when we do so many times, we have to wonder if there isn't something seriously wrong with this country. I will always remember the first responsibility given me by the late Jack Layton when I was first elected, and that was official languages. I was from Quebec, and I tapped into all the energy and motivation of francophones living in minority communities across Canada to defend their rights. French is relatively well established, although we still worry it may not be secure enough. I then discovered a double standard against which I have always wanted to fight.

I will seize this opportunity to acknowledge the work of my colleague from Drummond, who will continue the fight led by Yvon Godin, the former member for Acadie—Bathurst, for 17 years in the House, if memory serves. The member for Drummond is working to ensure that this bill finally passes.

The NDP has always led this fight. I do not hesitate to call it a fight, because after so many failed attempts to appeal to common sense, we need to make it a real fight so that both official languages of this country get the respect they deserve. The NDP has introduced no fewer than three other bills before this one to include the understanding of both official languages as part of the selection criteria for judges in the Supreme Court Act.

I would like to express my own personal opinion. This proposal falls short of my personal expectations. I believe that, for a position as critical to Canadian democracy and our justice system, no less, much more than simple understanding is required. I believe that the standard should be perfect bilingualism.

Let us say, however, that if every Supreme Court judge could hear arguments with all their subtleties, that would already be a great start; three bills later, however, and still no consensus. In 2008 and 2010, the bills died on the Order Paper when an election was called. Some might say that this was fate, although we know that elections are sometimes called specifically so that certain bills will die on the Order Paper, but I am not here to judge this evening.

In 2014, however, it was the Conservatives who did not see the merits of this bill and who simply rejected it. Let us hope that this time everyone will end up seeing the light.

Bill C-203 is nothing less than a matter of respect because behind the language is the people who speak it, people across Canada who live in a minority situation, except in Quebec, as I was saying. Needless to say, requiring a judge to understand both official languages means requiring knowledge of French.

Could we find a francophone judge who does not understand English? Good luck. The question answers itself.

Just imagine an anglophone having to defend themself before a Supreme Court whose justices are for the most part unilingual francophone. Then people would understand the struggles francophones in this country face when they appear before the Supreme Court.

Some will say that there is simultaneous interpretation. That is true. We have experience with that type of interpretation in the House of Commons and in committee on almost a daily basis. In fact, allow me to take this opportunity to emphasize the quality of the services provided in the House and in the various committees.

However, we can also attest to the limits of this practice when it comes to getting across the subtleties of French or English. Sometimes we complain about a poorly translated book that does not at all reflect the subtleties of the original. We say that the translation was bad and that the book was much better in the original language. A translator translating a book has time on their side. Our interpreters work in real time.

It is not unusual for members of the House to use common expressions in either of the two official languages just to see how the interpreters will render their remarks. It is done in a joking way. It is nothing serious, but it allows us to see the commonalities between expressions in both official languages.

However, when it comes to the highest court in the country, I think that the time for joking is past. Although the things we talk about here are important, there is not the same sense of finality as there is with an appeal to the Supreme Court, which, it is important to remember, is the final court of appeal in Canada.

When the Supreme Court renders a unanimous decision, nine judges to zero, regardless of whether it is in favour of the appellant or not, it is clear that translation was not a problem and that everyone had the same understanding of the events in question.

However, let us now imagine that a decision is rendered with five judges to four. If five judges ruled against the defendant and he felt as though he was not heard and understood in his mother tongue, that is a major problem. French is one of the two official languages, not the second official language. Both official languages are equal.

What is more, Canada's legal system is bijural, which means that each law is written in both official languages, and each version has its own separate context. Laws are not written in one official language and then translated into the other. The French and English versions are drafted side by side, the drafter drawing on the strengths of each language.

Given that the principle of bilingualism was recognized and imposed on officers of the House of Commons, thanks to the hard work of former NDP member Alexandrine Latendresse, it seems to me, and with good reason, that the House lacks conviction and is being inconsistent by not adopting that same principle for judges in the highest court of Canada.

Let us hope that, this time, we will all speak with one voice and recognize that we have been slow to act and that it is high time this problem was solved.

I just want to say that times sure have changed. Gone are the days when we made a point of highlighting bilingualism in our résumés to stand out from the crowd. In Canada, speaking two languages is a basic skill. Most employers agree that, when they are going over résumés to find the best candidate, they know that speaking multiple languages is an asset. Employers ask candidates which languages they speak in addition to English and French. That is an asset. Being bilingual in Canada is a basic skill.

Bilingualism is now a basic tool for everyone. Being multilingual is still special, and there is a growing demand for people who speak several languages. Claims that it might be impossible to find competent bilingual judges in certain provinces and territories do not hold water. The way I see it, that claim never did hold water because bilingualism is an essential qualification for Supreme Court jobs.

How many jobs have I myself dreamed of having one day but given up on because I did not have the necessary skills or the desire to work hard to acquire those skills? Anyone who dreams of capping their law career with a seat on the Supreme Court bench has to realize that this skill is now indispensable in Canada.

In closing, I would like to once again thank the member for Drummond for keeping up the fight.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke has one minute to begin his speech, but he will be able to continue the next time the bill is before the House.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to the bill sponsored by my colleague from Drummond, whom I know well and really like.

I know how well-intentioned he is when it comes to the initiative that he has brought before the House and that we are debating here today. I will have a chance to discuss it in more detail at a later date.

Nevertheless, I want to commend him on his extremely important bill. This initiative was previously led by our colleague, Yvon Godin, whom we have all commended, just as I wish to do now, because he did extraordinary work and passionately defended this call for bilingualism in the Supreme Court.

I think it is time to enshrine in law the requirement that Supreme Court judges be bilingual. If we can do so for officers of Parliament, as we did in the 41st Parliament, I do not see why Supreme Court justices, the judges of the highest court in the land, should not also be required to be bilingual, and I do not see any good reason the government could possibly give to disagree.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Sherbrooke will have nine minutes the next time the matter is before the House.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from March 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-203, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-203 today. It is an important bill and it seems to me that it reflects a value shared by the members of the House, who believe that it is important that Canadians across the country truly have access to the courts in the official language of their choice, and that includes the Supreme Court of Canada. I congratulate the member for Drummond for bringing forward this issue.

That said, although I applaud the objectives of this bill, I believe that the focus on the Supreme Court of Canada is misplaced and that it would be better to redirect these efforts in order to strengthen the bilingual capacity of Canada's superior and appeal courts.

First of all, the government has already taken real steps to ensure that judges appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada are actually bilingual. Focusing on superior courts across Canada will ensure that this benefits a greater number of Canadians and that there is a larger pool of bilingual judges that could be future candidates for the Supreme Court of Canada.

I am proud of everything our government has done to support official language minority communities. I am especially proud that our government has again demonstrated the strength of its commitment to enhancing the bilingual capacity of Canadian superior court judges at all levels.

On September 25, the Minister of Justice announced the action plan for enhancing the bilingual capacity of the superior courts. During her announcement, the Minister of Justice emphasized that all Canadians are entitled to have fair and equitable access to the justice system, which should be able to respond to their needs in the official language of their choice, and I think we can all agree on that.

The action plan initiatives will enable the government to assess the situation with respect to equal access to the superior courts in both official languages and take concrete action to close any gaps. I would also note that September 25 was Franco-Ontarian Day. I think it was smart to announce the action plan that day.

The seven-point action plan includes strategies for enhanced tools to verify and assess the bilingual capacity of judicial applicants, examine language training for current members of the judiciary, and confirmation of the minister's commitment to collaborative consultations with chief justices with respect to the bilingual capacity needs of their courts. The government is also committed to consulting with provinces and territories on relevant bilingualism initiatives in superior courts.

The action plan builds on our government's commitment to make every effort to develop a superior court judiciary with a sufficient bilingual capacity across the country in all trial and appellate courts. That is part of the government's overall objective of having a judiciary that reflects the face, voice, and reality of the Canadian population.

Of course, increasing the bilingual capacity of the Canadian judiciary will ensure not only greater access to justice in superior courts in both official languages, but also a rich pool of bilingual candidates for Supreme Court of Canada appointments.

The vast majority of Canadians will not bring a case before the Supreme Court, but will more likely have civil or family law cases before superior courts.

Allow me to paint a picture of the strategic measures that the government has already taken to ensure that candidates who are functionally bilingual are appointed to the Supreme Court.

Our government believes that the Supreme Court of Canada should reflect the linguistic duality of this great country. That explains the mandate of the Independent Advisory Board on Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments, whereby the committee is to submit a list of qualified, functionally bilingual candidates to the Prime Minister for consideration.

The government's commitment to appoint functionally bilingual judges only is also part of the statement of merit criteria for evaluating candidates, a list that accessible and easily obtained on the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs website.

During the implementation of the new appointment process, Justice Malcolm Rowe appeared before parliamentarians gathered at the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa and clearly demonstrated that he was functionally bilingual.

Furthermore, our government confirmed this commitment on June 13 when it tabled its response to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on the new process for judicial appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.

On July 14, 2017, the Prime Minister of Canada launched a second process to select a Supreme Court justice in order to identify the ninth member of the court who will fill the vacancy created by the upcoming retirement of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. This advisory board will follow the same appointment process to ensure the appointment of jurists who are of the highest calibre, functionally bilingual, and who reflect the diversity of our great country.

I would now like to elaborate on measures introduced by our government following the changes made in October 2016 to the process for judicial appointments to the superior courts. The objective of these measures was to bolster public confidence by making the process more open, transparent, and accountable in order to foster diversity and gender balance in the judiciary.

Among the reforms was a requirement for greater detail regarding applicants’ self-identified bilingual capacity, the possibility of language assessments, and a new reporting requirement. The action plan announced on September 25 builds on those changes and takes important new steps in the areas of information gathering, training, and collaboration for and among many stakeholders.

The changes made in 2016 are already delivering results. For example, during question period in the House of Commons on September 25, the minister said she was very pleased that the critical reforms to the judicial appointments process had led to increased bilingual capacity, with five out of the eight judges in northeastern Ontario being fluently bilingual.

When the action plan was unveiled, the minister also said she was pleased that it addressed many of the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages in his 2013 report, entitled “Access to Justice in Both Official Languages: Improving the Bilingual Capacity of the Superior Court Judiciary”. The report was produced in partnership with the commissioner's Ontario and New Brunswick counterparts. I understand this report was highly useful in the development of the action plan.

In closing, our government remains strongly committed to ensuring that Canadians across the country have real access to justice in the official language of their choice. I believe that our approach is the best way to fulfill our shared commitment to making sure our courts reflect the linguistic duality of this country.

Our government has kept its promise to appoint only functionally bilingual justices to the Supreme Court. Now it is time to expand that initiative to our superior courts and courts of appeal.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak to Bill C-203, introduced by the member for Drummond. Bill C-203 would amend the Supreme Court Act to require that judges appointed to the Supreme Court understand both English and French, without the aid of an interpreter.

The Supreme Court as an institution already fully functions in both English and French. All services and communications of the court are provided in English and French. All those who appear before the court are free to use English or French in written or oral submissions. All judgments of the court are issued in English and French. All factums submitted to the court are translated, and during oral proceedings, judges and lawyers at the court have the benefit of simultaneous translation.

Therefore, it begs the question, if the court as an institution already is fully functional in both English and French, what benefit would Bill C-203 serve? Proponents of Bill C-203 seem to make the crux of the argument that judges who rely upon professional translators may somehow miss nuances in oral argument, which in turn would lead to rendering of improper decisions.

The Supreme Court was established in 1875. For 142 years, the Supreme Court has heard and decided upon thousands of cases. During the debate around this bill and identical bills that were introduced in previous Parliaments, not one proponent of the bill could cite a single case that was decided wrongly, definitively on the basis of translation errors. There is not one case. Moreover, in the event that a case was decided wrongly, there is a remedy available. That remedy would be a rehearing of the case.

Therefore, it again begs the question that, if there is no case that has definitively been decided wrongly on the basis of a translation error, and if there is already a remedy available in that very unlikely event, what purpose would Bill C-203 serve? I submit that in the face of those facts and the evidence of what Bill C-203 is, however well intentioned, it is a bill in search of a problem that does not exist.

What Bill C-203 would do, however, if it were passed, is create many problems. First, it would significantly reduce the pool of qualified candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court. The fact is that, outside the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick, very few Canadians are fluently bilingual.

Indeed, had Bill C-203 been the law, some of Canada's most distinguished jurists would never have been appointed to the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice McLachlin, not to mention former chief justices Duff, Laskin, and Dickson. Justice Moldaver would not be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, as he presently does. Justice Major from Alberta, who served on the court with distinction for 13 years, would not have been qualified. I could go on.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Sopinka.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Justice Sopinka is another, as the member for Durham correctly points out.

While the purported objective of Bill C-203 is to ensure that nuances of oral argument are not lost in translation, I would submit that the likelihood of nuances being lost are much more likely to occur in the event that Bill C-203 were passed. If translators at the Supreme Court, who are among the best translators in Canada, make mistakes, then what is the likelihood that a judge hearing a highly technical, highly complicated legal argument in his or her second language might also miss nuances of oral argument? Common sense dictates that it is a certainty, and I submit it is a certainty that will occur much more regularly if Bill C-203 is passed.

Then there are serious practical issues. Would a test be administered to determine proficiency in English and French? Who would be the arbiter of that test? What would happen to the current nine members of the Supreme Court? Would they have to take a test? If they did not pass, what would then happen? That is just touching the surface of some of the practical issues that would be faced.

While Bill C-203 is well intentioned, it is a fundamentally flawed bill. I fully agree that being able to understand English and French is a highly valuable skill for a Supreme Court justice to have, and I believe that it should be a consideration that goes into determining whether an applicant should be appointed. However, linguistic characteristics must not trump experience, competence, and excellence in the law, not to mention the many other personal characteristics that are essential for a jurist to serve on the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada.

As I say, Bill C-203 is well intentioned, but the problem with it is that it searches for a problem that simply does not exist, to the detriment of appointing the most qualified candidates to the Supreme Court of Canada, and it is on that basis that I oppose Bill C-203.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-203, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act, which deals with the understanding of official languages.

I would like to start by congratulating and thanking the member for Drummond for introducing Bill C-203. He has taken up a cause once championed by Yvon Godin, our former colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who introduced the same legislation in 2008, in 2010 and again in 2014. This just goes to show that principles matter. On those three separate occasions, the NDP voted in favour of the bill, and the Liberal members, too, three times voted in favour of this very same bill we are discussing today.

That said, some of the speeches I have heard coming from the Liberal benches lead me to believe that they may not do so again. I wonder, if the Liberals believed this legislation to be sound on three separate occasions over a 10-year period, why would they cease to think so now that they are in government? It should be noted that this bill is very similar to one that passed in the last Parliament, a bill that was sponsored by Alexandrine Latendresse, then member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, and dealt with the language skills of officers of Parliament. Some of the points argued by my Conservative colleagues remind me of some of the ones I heard back then, when we were debating this same bill that would have required officers of Parliament to be bilingual.

The same applies today. The issue of the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges is a fundamental one. It involves not only sitting judges and those who may one day be called to the bench, but also the right of every Canadian to be served in their language of choice when appearing before our country's highest courts. It is one thing to be able to plead one's case in a given language, another thing entirely to be understood in that language.

To my mind, bilingualism is not an asset but rather a required skill, which is why the words “understanding the official languages” appear in the bill's title. This is about a specific skill among judges that will be called upon to hear cases in English and in French.

I will only read two quotes in my 18 allotted minutes. The first one comes from Serge Rousselle, former law professor at the University of Moncton, currently serving as the member for Tracadie-Sheila and Minister of Education in the Liberal government of New-Brunswick. I have known Mr. Rousselle since my days at the University of Ottawa. I know him very well, and I know how committed he is to advocating on behalf of francophone minorities.

This former law professor and dean of the University of Moncton's faculty of law said the following:

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.

Moreover, how can one fully grasp a case in French when many documents have not been translated in English and cannot be directly accessed by unilingual anglophone judges?

This is a fundamental question that runs counter to what my colleague for St. Albert—Edmonton mentioned moments ago. From a logistical standpoint, it can be difficult to ensure the availability in both languages of all of the documentation needed to hear a case while sitting on the country's highest court. This is not only about translating documents, but also interpreting oral arguments. As competent as interpreters are, when they are called upon to interpret arguments that sometimes rely on extremely technical language, that can lead to disagreements over the meaning of what was said. I could quote several members of the legal profession who are of the belief that interpretation simply failed to reflect their arguments' level of sophistication.

That is entirely understandable. Interpreters are only human. Though I may consider myself to be bilingual, I do not envy them their work, which is extremely difficult. That said, the fact remains that some cases that end up before our country's highest court, the court of last resort, are inadequately heard by some Supreme Court justices.

Michel Doucet, a most esteemed law professor at the University of Moncton specializing in linguistic rights, said the following not too long ago:

I have had the opportunity to appear before the Supreme Court on at least seven occasions. I've also gone before a number of tribunals. I believe that my specific experience in the courts has enabled me to see to what extent it is important for judges to be able to directly understand the submissions made by the various parties.

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.

These words from a highly respected legal expert should be reason enough for us to want to study, at the very least in committee, the amendments that our colleague from Drummond proposes in Bill C-203.

I am asking government members and even my Conservative opposition colleagues to at least give the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights the opportunity to debate this fundamental issue. It is not enough for government members to say that the issue is resolved because we have bilingualism programs for lower court judges that are ultimately supposed to help put more judges in superior courts. Nor is it enough to say that the problem will go away because the current government has a process to appoint bilingual judges. The same argument could have been used in the context of the bill on language skills for officers of Parliament.

If the government is going to appoint bilingual judges, why do we need a bill? Because it is not enough. We need to enshrine this requirement, this recognition in law to make sure it really happens and to make sure the changes stick. I do not know if other Liberal members will be speaking to this bill, but I would urge them to consider some of the facts I mentioned, which I will now recap.

First of all, while in opposition, the Liberal Party supported this same bill three times in the past 10 years: in 2008, 2010, and 2014.

Did their principles change when they were elected? I certainly hope not. It is not enough that this government is wiling to appoint bilingual judges to the Supreme Court; we need to enshrine this principle in the law. Otherwise, there is no guarantee that a future Liberal, Conservative, or NDP government, or any other governing party, will be able to guarantee bilingualism within the Supreme Court, thereby guaranteeing that francophone and anglophone litigants will be understood in the same way and provided an equal playing field.

Equal access to justice in both official languages is a fundamental principle. In this country, our laws are not written in English and then translated into French. Laws introduced by francophone members are not drafted in French and then translated into English. Both versions are equally valid. This principle matters when interpreting legislation. That is why we must enshrine it in law.

Now, we are the first to admit that this bill may not be perfect, as I know the member for Drummond is aware. For instance, there is the issue of whether it may create barriers to the appointment of indigenous judges. On this side of the House, by which I mean me, the member for Drummond and the rest of the NDP, we are open to amendments that would allow us to address this issue. Such amendments could be moved in committee, for example.

The bottom line is that the House should not dismiss the member for Drummond's proposal out of hand, because it touches on a fundamental element on which the Liberals and the NDP have agreed for 10 years.

Let us pass this bill at second reading so we can tweak it in committee with a view to affirming the principles of providing justice in both official languages and of equality between both official languages in this country, and to ensuring that no case in Canada is lost, or suspected of having been lost, because a judge failed to understand the legal arguments presented because of the language in which they were presented.

I urge the House to vote for Bill C-203 so we can have this important discussion in committee and then return the bill to the House.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this afternoon to speak to this very important topic and to an institution that is dear to me. You will see why in a moment.

Although I support the intent behind Bill C-203 introduced by the hon. member for Drummond, I sincerely believe that at the end of the day, legislation is neither necessary nor even advisable under the circumstances, even though having bilingual Supreme Court justices is very important and something we should all work toward.

This is the second time I have said as much. I said that the Supreme Court is an institution that is very dear to me. I had the opportunity in my life to be a clerk to a Supreme Court justice from 1989 to 1990. I worked for Justice Peter deCarteret Cory, an Ontario judge who was bilingual.

I would like to correct something that the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton said. Justice John Sopinka was perfectly bilingual. That year, he did not have a clerk so I worked with him, too, and even attended in camera meetings with him in French. It is true that he had an accent that at the time was called the “John Diefenbaker accent”, but his French was impeccable.

Having had that experience, I agree with many of the ideas my hon. colleague just put forward. It is very important that all lawyers' arguments, whether oral or written, be understood without the use of translation. Yes, texts are translated, and yes, much like here, the Supreme Court interpretation service is very good.

However, this is about the process of making legal arguments. When a lawyer seeks to impress the merits of his case upon a judge, every word is carefully selected, which makes legal arguments particularly difficult to translate. It is of the utmost importance, then, for judges to be able to understand both written and oral arguments without the use of translation.

I also participated in a case that was before the Supreme Court and I helped draft a submission to the court. I can assure you that every word is carefully weighed, because there are limits. Once again, it is very important to be able to understand the speaker's arguments and style. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton has a certain style when he makes his speeches. He should understand why it is so important to protect the integrity of an argument's style.

Even if the interpretation is good, it is about convincing someone, so it is very important that our goal be to have bilingual Supreme Court judges.

That said, as a former law professor in a bilingual, bijural faculty, the first thing I have to point out is that the law does not always offer the ideal solution to a problem. In our case, I do not believe this kind of law is necessary.

As my colleague from Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs just told us, we have already taken steps to change the selection process for Supreme Court judges and the process to select a successor to Chief Justice McLachlin to ensure that bilingualism is a central consideration. We have already done that, and it worked well in the case of Justice Malcolm Rowe, and it should continue to be part of the system itself.

My colleague also described the action plan we introduced for superior courts, which is where people have their first contact with the legal system. Supreme Court Justice Cory always said that he was not the most important person in the system and that superior court judges play the most important role because they are the ones that have contact with the people.

While we may agree on the purpose of the bill, and while I would like us to have nine fluently bilingual, or at least functionally bilingual, Supreme Court justices, that is not advisable. When it comes to the Supreme Court, a careful balance must be struck.

What my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques just said is also true in some respects. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to call on a criminal law expert or a trade law expert to help in its understanding because of both the complexity of the subjects it addresses and the language that is used. When the Supreme Court needs such experts, then it is rather significant. In that respect, a bilingual candidate does not necessarily meet the current needs of the court.

I would like for us to maintain this flexibility that allows us, in some cases, to fill some of the possible gaps left among the nine justices. It is also very important to consider the substance of the cases that are brought before the Supreme Court.

The future can be unpredictable. We have to be prudent. That is what are doing with regard to the measures that are already in place. It would be premature to act before seeing whether people fully adopt these measures.

Law students and lawyers already know that they have to be bilingual if there is any hope of being appointed to the Supreme Court. Perhaps in the future it will not be a problem. It is better to be prudent for now.

Finally, there are constitutional issues. If we tried to change the criteria for selecting Supreme Court justices, it is highly likely that the provinces would say that it is unconstitutional. It is best not to open Pandora's box.

The government already has the rather significant burden of justifying the appointment of non-bilingual judges to the Supreme Court. It shifts the emphasis to the judges who are already bilingual. To justify the choice of a judge who is not bilingual, the government has to have a convincing reason. It is already a weighty standard that has the same effect as what the hon. member for Drummond wants to entrench into law. For these reasons, I believe that such a measure is neither desirable nor necessary in the current context.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this bill this evening. I believe that my colleagues from Drummond and Rimouski have already laid out a positive case for this legislation. I would like to use my speech to respond to some of what we have heard in opposition to the bill from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, as well as from the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.

The first argument we heard was that the Supreme Court is already bilingual, so there is no problem to solve here. In a similar vein, the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun pointed out that the Prime Minister has already promised to appoint bilingual judges to the Supreme Court. I fail to see these as arguments against the bill. In fact, I think they show that the bill is entirely realistic and achievable, and if the Prime Minister is promising to do this anyway, why not codify it in law? That is the question that I would put back.

It is currently the case that eight of the nine Supreme Court judges are functionally bilingual. New appointments are going to be bilingual. Why not put that into law? The member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun said that, rather than a requirement, it should be left as a primordial criterion. Maybe one needs to be a lawyer to understand the difference between a requirement and a primordial criterion. However, it sounds to me as if we all agree that this is something pretty essential for Supreme Court judges.

The second argument we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton is that there is not a single case that was definitively decided incorrectly, based on a problem with language. I think this is a very strange standard. For a case to get to the Supreme Court, it has to go through a couple of other courts first. The Supreme Court is not adjudicating cases based on the evidence. It is not as though a Supreme Court judge is going to miss a piece of evidence based on not understanding the language. Cases are appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada based on issues of legal interpretation.

It would be difficult to establish that any case before the Supreme Court was definitively decided incorrectly. At that level, it comes down to interpretation, and at that level of nuance, language can be quite important. Again, this notion of proving that a case was decided incorrectly because of language is the wrong standard for this debate.

The third argument we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton was the notion that this bill would reduce the pool of qualified candidates. I think the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun was trying to make the same point when he talked about how specialized certain Supreme Court justices need to be in particular areas of law.

Beyond stating the obvious point that we in the NDP view functionality in both official languages as a very important qualification, I also note that the bill proposes to hold appointees to a very reasonable standard of bilingualism. We are not saying that people appointed to the Supreme Court need to be able to translate Molière or need to be able to speak perfectly in French or in English. What we are saying is that they need to have a basic understanding of both official languages without interpretation. I believe that this is the standard that otherwise qualified candidates for Supreme Court appointments can achieve. I believe that this is a realistic thing to expect of people, and that it is not going to unduly reduce the number of qualified candidates.

The fourth argument we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton was that this bill would result in more errors because Supreme Court judges would be relying on their own imperfect understanding of the other official language, rather than relying on the excellent interpretation services already available at the Supreme Court. However, this bill is not talking about taking interpretation out of the Supreme Court. This bill is talking about adding to that excellent interpretation service a base level of knowledge of both official languages on the part of the judges themselves.

That leads to a more robust system. If someone with a base level understanding of the language is also listening to interpretation, they are going to understand it better and will be able to better detect possible problems with interpretation or translation. We have a better system when we have people with their own understanding of the language who also have access to excellent interpretation and translation services.

The fifth point we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton was about how we are going to test people, if we are going to administer some sort of language exam to people who are going to be appointed to the Supreme Court. I answer this question in two ways. First of all, yes, we do this all the time in the Government of Canada. Every year, we have thousands of public servants who take language exams to establish their proficiency in both official languages. There are certainly tests available that we already administer to determine whether someone can understand both official languages.

The other point I make is that this is a very technical question about what kind of testing we are going to use. If this is really the concern of the Conservatives with this bill, then the solution is to vote to send it to committee so that the committee can look at the different types of tests that might be available. That is not a reason to vote against the bill at this stage of deliberation.

The last argument we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton was that, of course, command of both official languages would be an important consideration, but that we should not make it an official requirement. That was also the fundamental argument we heard from the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun this evening, that it is a consideration, that it is part of the mix, that it is really important but should not be an ultimate requirement. In fact, I think the member went so far as to suggest that it is so important that de facto it is almost already a requirement, that it would be very difficult for a government to justify appointing a Supreme Court judge who is not bilingual.

I make the case that if it is already a kind of de facto requirement, that if as a practical matter one does need to be able to understand both official languages to become a Supreme Court justice, it would actually be better to make it an official requirement because that would send a clear signal to everyone in Canada's legal community that it is a requirement they need to meet to qualify for appointment to the Supreme Court. The worst case scenario would be for someone who is otherwise qualified to go forward in the appointment process thinking that it is not a requirement, only to not be appointed for all the reasons the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun articulated. It is better to just put the requirement out there explicitly in law so that people who aspire to serve on the Supreme Court know this is something they will need to learn, a skill they will need to develop. If as a practical matter it basically already is a requirement, it is better just to have it be an explicit requirement for people, rather than allow for possible confusion about whether candidates for the Supreme Court actually need to be able to function in both official languages.

To sum up, bilingualism is clearly a fundamental cornerstone of our country. We expect federal institutions to be bilingual. That does not necessarily mean that every single person who works in those institutions needs to be bilingual, but we certainly would expect the top people, such as Supreme Court judges, to have a basic understanding of both official languages.

The court already is bilingual. The Prime Minister has already promised to appoint bilingual judges. That shows the feasibility of this bill. It shows that it realistic and achievable. We have heard the argument that we cannot prove that cases have been decided wrongly on linguistic grounds, but again, Supreme Court cases are decided on interpretation so we cannot really prove anything is wrong. All we can do is to say that the adjudication would be better if justices had an understanding of both languages, in addition to having access to the translation and interpretation services that already exist.

Having debunked the arguments against this bill, I invite all members of the House to vote in favour of it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I must inform the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie that she has six minutes left to speak. I will have to interrupt her at about 6:58 p.m. to allow time for the right of reply.

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

[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.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and wind up the debate on this bill to require Supreme Court justices to be bilingual.

For the past two years, I have been on a quest to persuade all of my colleagues of the merits of this bill. I have received support from all sides over the past two years. Some 200 Canadian municipalities, regional county municipalities, and regions have sent letters of support for this bill. Bar associations across Canada, including the Barreau du Québec, support this bill. It is also backed by many renowned lawyers and constitutional experts.

I want to thank all of the members who spoke to this bill today, whether for or against. I hope those who were against will change their minds by next Wednesday. However, I want to thank them for taking the time to debate this extremely important bill that will advance not just the French language, since we often focus on French alone, but the cause of bilingualism as well. Canada has two official languages of equal status. That needs to be recognized and cultivated.

I will quote Graham Fraser, the former commissioner of official languages, who stated why it was so important to have legislation requiring Supreme Court justices to be bilingual.

He said that the Supreme Court was the final court of appeal and that it was imperative that its judges understand, in both official languages and without the assistance of an interpreter, “all the information and arguments presented, including any nuances that may have an impact on the outcome.” He went on to say that simultaneous interpretation and translation had their limits.

We understand where he is coming from, successive official language commissioners have long been calling for the same thing. Even the Liberals voted three times in favour of bills introduced by Yvon Godin, the former member for Acadie—Bathurst. He has been fighting for this for 15 years and I just want to acknowledge his excellent work. Not only did he promote bilingualism, but he also promoted equity and equality before the courts, including the Supreme Court.

I also want to mention how important respecting the rights of indigenous peoples is within the framework of this bill. We do not talk about it enough, but it is absurd that the First Nations and the Métis cannot speak their own language here in the House of Commons.

I hope that the government will change its mind because it is inconceivable that this is not possible. I am calling on all members of the House to refer this bill to committee so that we can propose an amendment along the lines of the following:

Section 35 of the Constitution recognizes aboriginal rights, including rights with respect to the languages of indigenous peoples. If the bill passes, I will bring an amendment at committee stage to confirm that nothing in this law infringes aboriginal rights as recognized by Section 35 of the Constitution.

Progress on this issue is vital. Speaking of progress, I would like to talk about a law that I am very proud of, a law that the New Democrats put forward. New Democrats managed to convince all MPs to unanimously pass Bill C-419 on bilingualism for officers of Parliament. Back then, people raised the same arguments about how we would be better off with a single policy and about how the pool of candidates would not be big enough to appoint all 10 senior officers of Parliament. In the end, everyone agreed that there were 10 senior officers of Parliament and that they all absolutely had to be bilingual.

Now we are talking about the highest court in the land, and the same principle applies. There are nine justices, and they absolutely must be bilingual. That is why I am grateful to my former colleague, Alexandrine Latendresse, who introduced the bill, and to all the members who had the courage to improve bilingualism in Canada by passing the bill on bilingualism for senior officers of Parliament. Let us take another step forward. Let us vote in favour of this bill for bilingual Supreme Court justices.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 25, 2017, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-203, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-203 under Private Members' Business.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I see the hon. member for Davenport rising on a point of order.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the excitement of this vote, I ended up voting twice, but my intention was to vote no.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #374

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion defeated.