Mr. Schmale is next.
Evidence of meeting #23 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #23 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for being here today.
My time is short, so I do apologize.
As you said that three out of five of the potential candidates for the Supreme Court nomination would be from Atlantic Canada, who may or may not be chosen by the Prime Minister at the end of the day, are you okay if that vacancy goes to someone in Quebec or Ontario or other parts of the country and gives, say, Ontario four of those seats, and with not having anyone from Atlantic Canada represented?
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Well, just to clarify, I didn't say that three of the five candidates would be from Atlantic Canada. What I did say, and what the letter from the Prime Minister articulates, is that there will be candidates on the short list from Atlantic Canada.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Okay. I apologize if I wrote my notes down wrong.
Again, if the seat does go to someone from Quebec or Ontario, are you okay with nobody from Atlantic Canada being represented on the Supreme Court?
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I'm looking forward to our process unfolding. I'm certainly looking forward to the assessments that the independent advisory board will make with respect to the candidates who put their names forward. As part of this process I will have the opportunity, as I indicated, to consult on the short list, and that includes with Attorneys General of the relevant jurisdictions.
I know and am confident that the short list that is presented will reflect substantive jurists of the highest quality who are functionally bilingual and, to the extent possible, reflect diversity. I look forward to seeing that short list and doing the work that is required in this really important process.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
I thank you, Minister. I think we all agree that diversity and showing inclusiveness across the country is very important on the Supreme Court.
A point was brought up earlier by Mr. Bittle, and I would like to ask you again about it. Are you worried about the condition that the candidate be fully bilingual? Do you think that may hurt a potential candidate from Newfoundland and Labrador or possibly Prince Edward Island from being nominated or at least making it through the selection process?
Mr. Bittle did ask whether it could be adjusted to say that it would be a qualification that the candidate—he or she—could take the courses necessary, so that you don't rule out a section of the population.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I appreciate the follow-up on the question. To restate, it's our commitment that the next justice who's appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada will be functionally bilingual, and when I say “functionally bilingual”, it means having the ability to understand oral and written arguments. That's not to say the candidate will have to be able to engage counsel in both languages, although that's a positive attribute that a candidate can bring forward.
With regard to limiting the pool of candidates in terms of the appointment process, I am confident there are jurists across the country in every jurisdiction who will meet the criteria as described in our public process, and I encourage all of those individuals to apply.
3:25 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, that's an excellent segue into my next set of questions. I'd like to know what “functionally bilingual” actually means.
We can see from the documentation that one of the qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court judge is that the individual must be “functionally bilingual”.
My fellow member, Mr. Schmale, just said that candidates had to be fully bilingual as one of the conditions of appointment. The minister said, however, that that wasn't the case. She said appointees had to be able to understand oral and written arguments, not necessarily be able to speak the other language.
In an attempt to ascertain exactly what that means and in going over the various statements made by government members that day, I came across a comment by Joël Lightbound that was quoted in the media. In reference to the issue, he talked about candidates even having to pass a test.
Does the minister agree that candidates must demonstrate that they are functionally bilingual, no matter what that means in reality, even if it's having to pass a test? Is that part of the plan, or is Mr. Lightbound merely speaking for himself?
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you for the question.
I haven't seen the article to which you refer, but it will be the responsibility of the office of federal judicial affairs to determine the assessment of bilingualism in terms of the nominee who is announced.
3:25 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, it's been a long time since we've been pushing for the criterion to be there that you have to be bilingual. Yvon Godin worked very hard on this. One of the reasons was—and she's an extraordinary chief justice—that Chief Justice McLachlin, looking down at a lawyer who had pleading in French, asked him to slow down because one of the judges—and she named him—didn't understand any French. Since we both know that everything's timed in the Supreme Court, what that means is that there's an objective disadvantage when someone is told to slow down so that the translation can catch up.
Mr. Schmale's question and mine are similar, and I don't think we have an answer yet. I'd like to be able to answer people when they ask me that question: what does it mean to be functionally bilingual? The documents that have been put out by the government say it would it be an asset, just as we used to see “bilingualism an asset”, which usually meant it didn't really matter. Now the minster just used the term “positive attribute” to mean that it would be a positive attribute if you can actually speak the language. It's hard to understand how somebody can be functionally bilingual if they can't speak the language.
Maybe the minister could help us understand what that criterion is. I've worked in this area for decades now. I can tell you the criteria for members of professional orders under the Charter of the French Language, but I don't know what “functionally bilingual” means. Maybe the minister can tell us what it means to be “functionally bilingual” and what it is that might be tested, because one of our MPs just said that there might be a test associated with it.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
In terms of functional bilingualism, it is a requirement for a justice to be able to understand oral and written arguments without the aid of an interpreter. As I mentioned earlier, the ability of the justice to engage in conversations with counsel is not required, but it would be certainly a beneficial attribute of an individual wanting to put their name forward.
3:25 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page here, that we all understand the same thing.
The minister has just told us that a candidate can meet the condition of being functionally bilingual even if they can't actually speak the other language. That's what she's just told us. In a nutshell, then, as long as the person supposedly has some reading and comprehension capability in the other language, according to the criteria, they are considered functionally bilingual even if they can't speak the language.
I have to tell you that when I saw the word “functionally”, that was a first for me—the first time I'd come across a requirement of “functionally bilingual”. But, here we have it from the minister's own mouth. Even if the person can't speak the other language, they will be deemed to be “functionally bilingual”.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I've articulated what “functionally bilingual” means, and the assessment will be developed in the office of federal judicial affairs.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
3:25 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
What does that mean, “the assessment will be developed in the office of federal judicial affairs”? What does that mean?
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
That will be something for the office to determine, to be conclusive that the candidate that is being brought forward is functionally bilingual, meaning that the justice has the ability to understand oral and written arguments without the aid of an interpreter.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
It's a remark, and it's a compliment to the minister and the government on one specific point. Insistence on representation of the broad diversity of Canadian society is something with which we're in full agreement and for which we applaud the government.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Mr. Mulcair, and thank you very much to all the members of the committee for your profound and incisive questions.
Thank you very much, Minister, for your clear presentation and for taking so much time with the committee to answer our questions. Thank you very much.