Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The other problem that this motion raises is that there aren't a lot of bilingual candidates from those three provinces: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.
So by passing this motion, the committee would be severely limiting the ability of the government to appoint a candidate from one of the other three Atlantic Canadian provinces.
The last two justices on the Supreme Court from Atlantic Canada were both from New Brunswick, so there's a strong sense out there that the Supreme Court candidate should come from one of the three other provinces. The challenge is that this severely limits the ability of the government to find a candidate from one of those three provinces, particularly, for example, from Newfoundland and Labrador. There has never been a Supreme Court justice from Newfoundland and Labrador, in part because it has only been part of Confederation since 1949. There's a sense that maybe it's time for Newfoundland and Labrador to have a judge on the Supreme Court. The challenge is that it's very difficult, if not impossible, for the government to find a distinguished judge from that province who has all the qualifications and who is also bilingual.
That's the first point I'd make. The second point I'd make is that symbols are very important. I agree with Monsieur Godin on this, and with Monsieur Rodriguez as well, that symbols are very important. But symbols without the foundational substance behind them are just facades. I think you need both. I think we, as a committee, have focused too much on the symbolic aspects of federal institutions, and we have not tackled the difficult foundational causes that create these sorts of issues. That was the point I was trying to make earlier.
The third thing I'd say is this. If you believe in the Montesquieuian division of powers between the triumvirate of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, we would not, as a legislative branch, tie the hands of the judicial branch in a way that we don't for either the executive or the legislative branches. We don't require that députés be bilingual. We don't require that members of the cabinet or the prime minister be bilingual. In practice we try that, but it's not an official requirement. In fact we don't even require that you be a jurist in order to be a candidate for the Supreme Court. Justice Ian Binnie had no judicial experience before he was appointed by the then Liberal government. That's a case in point, where there's not even a requirement to have any experience on the bench to be a candidate for the Supreme Court.
We don't have these requirements to be bilingual in the legislative or executive branches of government. Neither should we have those requirements in the judicial branch if you believe that the three branches should be holding each other in balance, as many people believe is essential to a free and fair society. If we don't even have requirements that you have experience on the bench, that you were some sort of adjudicator at some court in Canada, then it seems to be putting the cart in front of the horse to put on stipulations with respect to the other qualifications a candidate might have.
Those are the points I would make, the first being that by restricting this to only bilingual candidates, in essence we are reducing, if not eliminating, the possibility of a candidate from Newfoundland and Labrador or Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia.
Secondly, I agree that symbols are important, but what's equally, if not more, important are the foundational aspects on which these symbols rest. Symbols without these foundations are mere facades.
The third point is this. If you believe in the division of powers, what's key to a good society is to have the division of powers and these three branches of government in balance. If the legislative and executive branches of government don't have this requirement, you are putting an especial burden on the judicial branch.
Furthermore, the judicial branch presently doesn't even have a requirement that its candidates sit on the bench or have any judicial experience in order to qualify as a candidate. To put this requirement on, in some ways, is putting the cart in front of the horse.
Those are the three points I'd make.
Thank you.