Justice Committee on Sept. 30th, 2009

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I'll let you get right back to it, but my reading of the bill is that this is almost what it's calling for, for someone to be nearly perfectly bilingual, because they would not need or avail themselves of the use of translation, of an interpreter. I agree, that type of individual is a rare individual.

Go ahead.

[Marie-Claude Bélanger-Richard]

Now, I wouldn't say that. Once again, the thing you don't have with the bill is any testing of linguistic capacity. That's for sure, and I don't think that would be part of any regulation.

Still, you're talking about someone who recognizes that the person can, first of all, read documents in French or in English and can understand oral arguments, because that's what you have before the Supreme Court of Canada. You don't have witnesses.

I would say that for bilingual people, and especially for a judge, or anybody who learns another language, usually it's when you have lay witnesses, who usually are more difficult to understand because they have accents and some different languages. But when you're talking about a legal argument, you're not going to assess or test the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada on their linguistic capacity. They are there. They know their responsibility. They are the court of last resort, so they know that they have to understand the arguments, the facts, and the law being presented to them.

My concern is that we have to be perfectly bilingual. I don't think it would be possible, once again, to test or assess this linguistic capacity. Once again, we can have someone who would say yes, I can understand, but it's not true. Well, a judge will not expose himself or herself to a complaint. Don't forget about that. You can be at this level, and if someone, a lawyer making arguments, can see that a judge doesn't understand, he or she could be exposed to a complaint.

You are talking about very intelligent professional people being appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. I'm sure they know they have to be functionally bilingual to understand these kinds of arguments. They're going to make the decision to participate or not in this appeal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Oh, am I out of time already? All right. Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Are there any other government members who want to ask questions?

Go ahead, Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I have a short, quick question.

At one of our committee meetings here, there was a little test that one of my friends across the way gave to our interpreters. He spoke very fast to try to make the point, to go along with Mr. Dosanjh, that on occasion interpreters may not be able to adequately express--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Excuse me just for a moment. Whoever has a BlackBerry on the desk, could you remove it? Thank you.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Maybe it's me. Yes, I'll punish myself later.

The result of this was that the interpreter did a very good job. We're dealing with the Supreme Court, and you just said it's the court of last resort. I get this picture that a lawyer must by mid-career decide whether or not he or she wants to be a Supreme Court judge. Many of us here, like me, never thought we'd be members of Parliament until later in life.

I believe we will mature into a bilingual country as time goes by, but we're still a very young country. Some legally gifted people who previously had no desire, compulsion, or thought to become a Supreme Court judge might one day be called upon to serve the country in this capacity—by the Prime Minister, a professor, or a group of people in their law society. The person would be told that he or she was needed at this point in the nation's history. The person would want to accept but would be prevented from doing so by a law restricting service of this kind to people who are functionally bilingual. I think what we need is to encourage good people, not restrict them.

We're politicians. We know we're supposed to care about our country. We need to put the political party things aside at times. We need to ask ourselves whether we're really doing ourselves a favour by locking in these kinds of requirements for service in one of the most precious institutions in this country, the Supreme Court. Do we really, for whatever political gain, want to do this at this time, or do we want to encourage more and more of our sons and daughters to become good lawyers so that someday maybe they will be able to serve their country in the Supreme Court? Do you not see that this could happen?

If I were at a mid-level court in this country and I thought my case was jeopardized by an incompetent interpreter, I would appeal it. I understand that this would be very difficult to do at the Supreme Court, because it's the top court.

These arguments are okay, but they're really not germane to this issue. Do all lawyers, when they go to law school, think of themselves as potential Supreme Court justices? Is it something that could happen later on in someone's career?

[Marie-Claude Bélanger-Richard]

As you pointed out, it's a young country. The values have changed in the last 20 years. When we were talking about bilingualism many years ago, it was kind of cute. Now it's becoming known that it's a plus to be bilingual. It is known that if you come here as a politician, it's a plus to be bilingual.

Even as a senior jurist, you don't think of becoming a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. At the same time, we have come a long way. We're getting new generations. With the technology, they talk to one another—the distance has no relevance for them at all. They're open to this new way. Bilingualism is now more common. The younger generations accept that it's a plus, that one should be bilingual.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I have no questions, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Great. I'm going to leave a little bit of room for additional questions.

Are there any over here, or from the Bloc?

Mr. Petit, and then Mr. Norlock.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Ms. Richard, I have a brief question for you.

I have been listening to you for some time. No one is against virtue, we can agree on that. We recognize that bilingualism has existed since 1968, 40 years now, and that it is enshrined in the Charter. Despite that, you will have noticed that even in Quebec, we study in French for as long as possible.

I understand that your experience is different. I am not targeting you, I'm taking a broad perspective. The problem I have is that this bill, despite its good intentions, excludes all lawyers, be they from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nunavut, or certain regions of Quebec who have not had the opportunity to perfect their English as they might have done in major cities like Montreal. It is not just an issue of becoming functionally bilingual, but functionally bilingual on the subject of the law. That is quite a different thing. This bill will exclude many people. Do not try and tell me that is not true, because I will assure you it will be very difficult to convince me, as Mr. Norlock was saying earlier on...

Do you think I want to become a Supreme Court justice? No. Perhaps I do not yet have that desire. After having argued cases for 25 or 30 years, perhaps I will. However, I am not bilingual.

[Marie-Claude Bélanger-Richard]

Mr. Petit, do you not believe that in Quebec, non-bilingual judges have been excluded from the selection of judges for the Supreme Court of Canada for years? The judges chosen from Quebec are always bilingual to a certain degree. I do not believe this changes anything. It was not necessarily in the legislation, but in the end, it was an unwritten principle.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Just to complete the last round, I don't like to play lawyer with a lawyer, because I'm not one and I know I'll lose. But I guess I have to ask if there are any reported cases or any discussions in senior legal circles—because you mentioned you were a senior jurist—where the Supreme Court has rendered a judgment that because of interpretation or issues surrounding interpretation, that judgment was questioned? You don't need to be specific, because that might cause some problems, but are aware of any such cases?

[Marie-Claude Bélanger-Richard]

No, I'm not aware. However, I would like to remind you that I read the proceedings of this committee when Michel Doucet from New Brunswick appeared, and he mentioned to you that in one of his appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada, he had lost five to four. After he presented his arguments before the court, he went to CPAC to listen to the translation that had been done at the time he was making his arguments. I am just repeating what I read in the proceedings. He said he could barely understand the translation of his own remarks. He suggested to this committee that he had lost five to four, and although it might have been the same result in any case, he had a question in his mind that maybe some of the judges who were there and had listened to his arguments through interpretation maybe did not get the full sense or meaning of his arguments.

I just give you that example, because I read it. But no, I don't have any knowledge of any cases. Once again, you have to go through the trouble of listening to the translation after the fact—

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

No, I'm not asking about a specific case, because I think that would put you in an unfortunate situation or it might not be something you want to talk about. I'm just talking about discussions in legal circles that certain cases, other than this particular one, may have been....

[Marie-Claude Bélanger-Richard]

On what we discussed, it's always, as was pointed out by your colleague, the fact that we don't want to do arguments through interpretation, that's for sure. For me as a lawyer, that would be the worst.

That's why I mentioned that in New Brunswick my unilingual colleagues are very tolerant, in the sense that when it comes time for arguments the interpreter will sit next to my colleague and will just murmur my arguments in their ear as opposed to our being interrupted all the time by consecutive translation, which would be terrible in an argument.

That's what I'm saying. Making arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada, knowing that you are at the last level and they are getting your arguments through interpretation, that seems terrible to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

I have just one follow-up question. Like Mr. Rathgeber, I'm from the west, from British Columbia, also with a legal background, and I'm certainly working hard--

[Marie-Claude Bélanger-Richard]

I'm sorry, but could you speak up a bit?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes.

I also have a legal background and I'm also trying to learn French here as a member of Parliament.

I'm thinking of the experience in British Columbia, if I'm someone born and raised in British Columbia and I make law my career, with my goal being to invest in my province. Yet somewhere along the line, someone tells me about the only way I could ever aspire to the highest court in the land. They tell me that not only am I going to have to get my schooling outside British Columbia, but I'm also going to have to immerse myself in a legal setting outside British Columbia, because we don't have a French environment in British Columbia. So inordinate periods of time will be spent outside my province, the one that I'm committed to serving.

As you know, the reason we have judges from across Canada is to reflect the regions, yet I won't be able to reflect my region on the highest court in the land because I'm going to have to spend so much time outside my province to get to that language capacity I require, which is an incredibly high one, based on my reading of Bill C-232. You can see the struggle I have.

It's not a matter of supporting bilingualism or not. The level of language capacity required under this bill is incredibly high because it involves technical legal matters. Especially in British Columbia and Alberta, the pool from which Supreme Court judges could be selected is very small. We have bilingual lawyers in British Columbia, but at the level that's required under this bill, it's a very, very small pool.

[Marie-Claude Bélanger-Richard]

The only answer I have is that so far we've still been able to get eight bilingual judges on the Supreme Court of Canada. It shows that despite what is called this limitation, it's quite something that we still have eight bilingual judges.

I think it's possible. I think the resources are there. It's not easy. I would agree with you that it's easier for some people to become bilingual than it is for others. That's true.

I have a colleague in my firm who went to France for six months, but still, beyond “Comment ça va?”, he's not able to speak French. He doesn't have the capacity for another language. He came to realize that and now, for sure, he's not doing anything else.

I agree with you, but at the same time, once again, it's a matter of knowledge of the law and knowledge of the society, the values, and the culture we have in Canada, which we want to have at the Supreme Court of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Does anybody else have a question?

Monsieur Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

With your permission, monsieur le président, I have an answer that I can give you in English.

It has been that level of expertise, of knowledge, and of familiarity that has been required of all francophone justices on the Supreme Court.