Justice Committee on Nov. 4th, 2009

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

What happens to Bill C-232, then, in the event that this motion fails?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

It would just move down the order. If we're moving Mr. Moore's motion to the top, everything else moves down, presumably.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Move the motion, but what I want to know is the consequence of the motion failing or the motion passing vis-à-vis Bill C-232.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

If Mr. Moore's motion fails, we then move to Bill C-232, as set out in the agenda.

There's no debate on this motion.

(Motion negatived)

So we will move forward with Bill C-232, and we have clause-by-clause consideration.

Monsieur Petit, and then we'll go to Mr. Comartin.

Yes, Monsieur Petit.

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

Mr. Chairman, before we vote on Bill C-232, as a member of Parliament, I would like to make a statement or comment. I don't know whether the Committee is in the habit of allowing that, but I believe that a member of Parliament should have an opportunity to express his or her views before voting, so that those comments are on the record. I believe this is a very important bill and I would there ask the Chair for permission to comment before the vote goes ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

To do it properly, Mr. Petit, I would call the first clause and then I would recognize you to speak to it. You will have an opportunity to speak to it shortly.

Mr. Comartin, did you have a question?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

In the past, if the author of a bill wished to address the committee before clause-by-clause consideration, it's been our practice to allow that to happen. Mr. Godin would like to do that today. It won't be very long. In effect he wants to respond to a specific point from one of the witnesses we heard; he wants to get that on the record.

That has been our practice, Mr. Chair. It has not always been exercised, but we usually honour that request from the author of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

As a relative newcomer to this committee, I'm really in the hands of the committee as to whether you want to proceed on that basis. Do we have consensus here?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Godin, you're welcome.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Godin, just one moment. How much time do you think you'll need?

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

I'll do it very fast. I'll be a couple of minutes.

To begin with, I would like to thank the Committee for reviewing Bill C-232, which is of vital importance to this country. As you know, we have two official languages in Canada: French and English.

Among those who appeared as witnesses, the Hon. Justice Major, retired, stated that he is opposed to Bill C-232. I was here when he gave his testimony and I listened to it with great interest. He said that, as a Supreme Court Justice, he had used the translation system and been very satisfied with it. In his opinion, that system is impeccable.

But, in your opinion, how is it possible for a person who speaks only one language to know whether the translation is impeccable? If I do not speak Italian and someone translates my words into that language, I will not be in a position to say whether he is doing a good job or not. I will not know what he is saying. I have no doubt that Justice Major was satisfied, but the fact is he was not in a position to know whether the translation was accurate or not.

With all due respect to our translators, who do an extraordinary job, the fact is there are times when they are unable to follow what I am saying in the House of Commons. When that happens, the “blues” have to be corrected. For a judge, however, there are no “blues” that can be corrected.

Mr. Chairman, someone said—and Mr. Petit may want to make this point—that unilingual MPs should not be ineligible for an appointment to the Supreme Court. In Quebec, we are talking about 14,000 lawyers. And the legislation is clear: at the time of his or her appointment, the judge must already be bilingual, and therefore capable of serving Canadians in this country's two official languages. That way, it will not be necessary to determine whether service should be provided in English, in French or in both languages. An example has to be set at the top and filter down from there.

I invite you to review the testimony of the National Defence general who appeared yesterday. He said that the bilingualism issue with respect to service delivery has to be dealt with and that it has to start at the top. That is exactly what he said in front of this Committee. I suggested that the Supreme Court be told the same thing.

I will leave this in your hands. You have a wise decision to make.

I want to thank you all for your work in relation to Bill C-232. I believe this legislation will have a profound impact on the history of our country as regards respect for our two official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

(On clause 1)

Is there any discussion or debate?

We'll go with Mr. Petit and Mr. Rathgeber.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to begin by saying that I am a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, along with Mr. Godin, and have been since becoming a federal member of Parliament. I am very much alive to issues surrounding the official languages, just as I am to the intent behind this bill. At first glance, it seems to be very simple, but the words “without the assistance of an interpreter” are problematic, in my opinion.

There are a number of lawyers here in this room. Mr. Ménard, Mr. Lemay and myself are members of the Quebec Bar. M. Murphy, Mr. LeBlanc, Mr. Moore and Mr. Comartin are also lawyers. Most of them are bilingual, but--

Oh, my apologies, Ms. Jennings!

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Like you, I am a member of the Quebec Bar. I am also the former Chair of one of the standing committees of the Quebec Bar.

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

Most of us are clearly bilingual and able to express ourselves quite easily in either the language of Shakespeare or the language of Molière, depending on what our main language is. However, when a lawyer is appointed a judge, he will be required, without the assistance of an interpreter, to understand all the legal subtleties in the language of the person appearing before him or her. What will that mean when the discussion relates to the Civil Code, certain criminal laws, the Bankruptcy Act, and so on? Legal terminology is specialized and difficult. Even in my own language, in French, I sometimes have trouble. Even in my mother tongue, I may disagree with the French-speaking lawyer who is arguing the case at the same time. I am not talking about a general level of proficiency when discussing something with the opposing party; I am talking about legal terminology.

Official languages are absolutely critical in this country, but if we include the words “without the assistance of an interpreter”, that will mean… There are approximately 22,000 lawyers who are members of the Quebec Bar, including many who handle cases outside Montreal, be that in Quebec City, in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region or in Abitibi. The possibility of their being able to argue a case in English is practically nil. Mr. Ménard always won all his cases, but he argued them in French. He could speak English, but he would not have the same skill, without relying on an interpreter, because he has not had an opportunity to argue a case in English.

I am from Quebec City, the second largest city in Quebec. Lawyers in Quebec argue their cases in French 99% of the time. Over a 30-year period, I argued cases in French. I can speak English with you, with Ms. Jennings and with my other colleagues, but supposing I wanted or had an opportunity to be appointed to the Supreme Court, because I had won all my cases and was a good lawyer. Well, I would not be able to because, without an interpreter, when dealing with legal matters—particularly extremely specialized cases—I would have trouble and would require the services of an interpreter.

That is precisely the reason why the word “interpreter” is so important. I believe most of our Supreme Court justices are functionally bilingual. If we demand that of those sitting on the Supreme Court, this will have to move further down the chain and be demanded of all judges, in all courts, whatever they may be, at least in the province of Quebec. There are bilingual lawyers who are able to argue a case in the other language, but they require the assistance of an interpreter. And they will no longer be able to do so because of this extremely far-reaching directive.

When you work in the legal field, words are important. Those who are appointed must, first and foremost, be highly skilled members of the legal profession, which is an extremely specialized area; that is very much to their credit. Quebec lawyers who are only able to argue a case in French will not be eligible for selection; therefore, they will be discriminated against. The same thing may happen to people in other provinces. Some lawyers are only able to argue in English, not in French. So, this will create major problems. That is what I wanted to draw the Committee's attention to.

In my opinion, the danger is that we will shut out young lawyers who, like myself, went to Laval University and endured Bill 101. I have never had an English-speaking client. Even if I were the best lawyer ever to have argued a case, I would not be eligible for an appointment because I cannot work without an interpreter—at least, not at the Supreme Court.

Therefore, we will have to tell young lawyers that they are being excluded. Without an interpreter, working in the legal field is extremely difficult. I think the Committee should pay close attention to the fact that a word is being added here. I support official languages, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages and I am part of a government that has done a lot for official languages; so, I support them unconditionally, but I don't want to create discrimination elsewhere.

In my opinion, it would be discriminatory towards members of the legal profession—at least a great many lawyers in Quebec—if we were to tell them that, unfortunately, they cannot be appointed to the Supreme Court because they have to be able to work without an interpreter. How are we going to assess them, without the assistance of an interpreter? I don't know. Will we assess them using a grid? I don't know that either.

I believe this bill is well-intentioned, but dangerous. That is what I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, and I ask Committee members to take a second look at it, including its effects on their own province, because I believe it would be dangerous for all the provinces.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move to Mr. Rathgeber.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Colleagues, I similarly am very concerned about clause 1 of this bill and will be voting against it. My concerns, I suspect, are similar to those of my friend Mr. Petit. I represent Alberta, as you all know--some would think so.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I represent Alberta on this committee, let's say.

We have very few bilingual lawyers and even fewer bilingual jurists. When the executive director of the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, Mr. Remillard, was here on June 15, he told me there were 37 members of his association from Alberta. In a province with over 7,000 practising barristers and solicitors, that represents less than one-half of one percent of the practising bar who are members of his association. I appreciate that membership is not mandatory, even if one is bilingual; nonetheless, it's a very small fraction.

I hearken back to the words of Justice John Major, retired—just two sentences:

In a practical sense it is going to be very difficult to find judges from B.C. and Alberta who have had the same opportunity to be bilingual.

Those are very sage comments, Mr. Chair. Here at the Parliament of Canada, Parliament generously offers classes in bilingualism with one-on-one tutors. I've tried to avail myself of that. It's difficult to learn a second language in your adult years, as I'm sure you all know. It's also balanced by time constraints, especially for those of us with protracted travel schedules coming back and forth from our constituencies. It's difficult to learn a second language in your forties, I would submit.

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of the land. I respect Mr. Godin and I think his bill is well-intentioned. However, I think it fails to take into account that although Canada is a bilingual country, not all regions of our country are bilingual. I speak specifically of British Columbia and specifically of Saskatchewan and specifically of my province of Alberta. It is going to be difficult—not impossible, but difficult—to find a qualified and experienced jurist who meets the bilingual requirements of this bill. It would be most unfortunate if any region of this country were denied representation in the highest court of the land.

Parliament is as important, probably more important but certainly as important, as the Supreme Court of Canada. But there is no requirement, thankfully, that parliamentarians be bilingual. Parliamentarians can speak in any official language. In committee, in the House, and in the Senate we rely on the translation services. I will concede, Mr. Godin, that those translation services are imperfect from time to time, but they are functional. If they are functional and workable for the Parliament of Canada, certainly they are functional and workable for the Supreme Court of Canada—even more so in the Supreme Court, where written factums are filed. I appreciate that in real time, translation is difficult. But when a translator has time to rethink their words, as you can do if you're translating a written document, translation becomes close to perfect, if not perfect, when translating written documents such as factums and transcripts from lower court proceedings, which invariably need to be filed at the Supreme Court. Regardless, if unilingualism leaves one eligible for membership in Parliament and the Senate, I cannot subscribe to the idea that the Supreme Court should have a higher test.

I do not believe we should sacrifice competence for linguistic proficiency, and I'm afraid that is what would be the case—either that or that some regions, such as the region I represent, would be excluded from the Supreme Court.

On a lighter note, I think it's ironic that I myself, as a unilingual lawyer, would not be eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court, when there are so many more relevant reasons why I shouldn't be eligible for employment.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Those are my comments, Mr. Chair. I'll be voting them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Rathgeber.

The next person is Ms. Jennings. I believe you had a point of order.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Yes. I simply would request that all of the votes on clause-by-clause of Bill C-232 be recorded votes.