Evidence of meeting #31 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was supreme.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Yes, one more minute, very quickly.
I think you had another answer, Monsieur Michaud.
5:20 p.m.
Constitutional Language Rights Lawyer, Partner, Cox & Palmer , As an Individual
I just wanted to stress this point. Regarding functional bilingualism, I agree. I believe that we must keep in mind the principles enshrined in section 19 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially all the rights that have to do with official languages and that are meant to ensure full institutional bilingualism, especially in the administration of justice, so that no one under a court's jurisdiction is disadvantaged as compared to someone else.
Therefore, if a person in court uses an official language, your question should be formulated as follows: how can we guarantee that the criteria for selecting judges, once they have been chosen and appointed, will ensure that the needs of the clients of the courts be met without creating an unjust situation? In my opinion, these things should be interpreted in this light.
Thank you very much.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you so much.
Unfortunately, we're out of time. Certainly your information has been very helpful to the committee, and who knows, we may want to call you back, because I think there's much more you would have wanted to share with our committee.
Thank you to all of you.
We're going to suspend for just a moment, and then we're going in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
