Official Languages Committee on May 13th, 2008

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to continue in the same vein as my friend Mr. Chong, who says we're focusing on the symptoms rather than the disease itself. I think you have to do both in the health system: treat the diseases and engage in prevention.

However, Mr. Lemieux says that the Liberals were in power for 13 years. But the Liberals aren't in power anymore. It's the Conservatives who are in power, and they said they would be better than the Liberals. Now they defend themselves by saying that the Liberals were there for 13 years and that everything has been political since then.

A parliament evolves so that things change. We can't go back over what the other party did or didn't do; we have to look ahead and see what we can do to improve the lot of Canadians.

Our country claims it is bilingual, it has the Official Languages Act, and it doesn't even require that the highest court in the land understand Canadians in the official language of their choice.Lawyers and judges must be able to interpret the law, but I believe last week's witnesses clearly showed that it was important that lawyers and judges understand witnesses as well. A lawyer and a judge can very well interpret the law, but not understand the witness's presentation. I believe Mr. Michel Doucet said that very clearly.

I wouldn't want to give Mr. Coderre any credibility. I also had a bill. Mr. Coderre blacked out, but that's fine; we're used to that. That shows that it's not just about the Liberal Party or politics. I want to say this: it's not a question of politics, but of respect for the two communities of our country, which has recognized itself as bilingual. When you recognize that kind of thing, you should recognize it completely.

Who has to fight today to ensure that the Olympic Games are broadcast in both languages? In what language will they not be broadcast across Canada? Once again, it's francophones who have to fight.

Earlier Mr. Chong said that we should focus on education and not take symbolic actions, but we have to do both. We saw what happened in New Brunswick with regard to the RCMP. Should we simply have waited for the RCMP to learn French? We had to go before the Supreme Court to have services offered in French to the people of New Brunswick. The Supreme Court itself ruled that the RCMP had to offer services in both official languages in New Brunswick and that no one should have to wait by the side of the road for 20 minutes for a bilingual officer to arrive.

However, if you appear before the Supreme Court, it is possible that a judge may not understand the language you speak, and that's not normal. We're not asking that francophones be appointed to the Supreme Court, but that the justices be bilingual. There are enough bilingual anglophones in the entire legal system who are able to speak both languages as well as francophones.

I would even go further, Mr. Chairman. I find it insulting when the government appoints its deputy ministers. Last week, we inquired into what went on when non-French-speaking deputy ministers met with people from the public service. If there isn't any interpretation, it's quite unfortunate, but it all takes place in English. Either we evolve or else we stay in the same place.

I don't like the Conservative government's argument that the Liberals were in power for 13 years. It seems to demand that we allow it to do the same thing. I absolutely do not agree. Parliament must evolve. We have to change things. We have to do both at the same time: cure the disease and do prevention. Prevention means training in the schools and universities. I agree with our colleague Mr. Chong that our young people must learn other languages. However, we have a duty to respect the law of Canada. The provincial appellate courts must be able to understand the people who appear before them in the language of their choice. But the Supreme Court, the highest court in Canada, does not have the same obligation, and it's the one that decides.

That's not respectful. We're going to send a message to Parliament, and that will continue. A bill will be tabled and the matter will have to be resolved once and for all. The country must be entirely bilingual or not at all.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

I often remind Mr. Chong and you that postsecondary education and training will be our next subject for study. So this prepares the way.

Mr. Rodriguez asked to speak. Then we can wrap up with Mr. Coderre.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've been an MP for nearly four years. I've asked to sit on this committee from the very beginning. The type of debate that is held here concerns Canada's values and vision. It's always very interesting and it reflects many things.

I feel a bit uncomfortable for my colleagues Mr. Petit and Mr. Lebel, and even for you, Mr. Chairman. What we understand from the government's current position is that it does not believe in bilingualism. The leader of the Conservatives told them that, for them, it was a necessary evil. I say that with all due respect, since I know the importance my colleagues attach to French and linguistic duality. I feel a bit uncomfortable for them.

Mr. Chong says we are working on symbols. Personally, I would say we are working to send a clear message. Mr. Coderre's motion sends a very clear message that the two languages have the same importance and the same value, and we should give them the same respect. The present debate concerns that, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.

All other things being equal, it remains for us to hear from Mr. Coderre and Mr. Lemieux.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chairman, we have a procedure. I'll finish with the motion so that we can then move on to the vote.

From the start, Mr. Lemieux has vented his sponsored-by-PMO spleen. He will do a good job. For my part, I haven't engaged in politics today. I adopted a very calm approach. It was they who felt bad. I didn't call them mean Conservatives. So let them vent their spleen, say what they have to say and play their little political game. The media are capable of judgment.

Then I'll state my final argument.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I consider that that was your speech. You'll have the right to go back to it. Thank you, Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Lemieux, go ahead, please.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

When Mr. Godin spoke, he gave the impression that bilingualism was not at all possible in the Supreme Court. In reality, the Supreme Court is quite able to function in both official languages. All the necessary resources are in place, and it has the ability to do so. There are now more bilingual judges than ever. There are seven bilingual judges and only one unilingual. The Supreme Court is therefore entirely capable of functioning in both official languages and thus of respecting bilingualism.

As I said the first time I spoke, it must be kept in mind that the principles of merit and excellence are paramount. In addition, language is indeed an important criterion. Our Minister of Justice is working with the provinces on the bilingualism file. The Commissioner acknowledged that fact.

Mr. Godin painted a dark picture, but it's not that dark, since we now have seven bilingual judges out of eight. We're looking for a ninth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.

Let's avoid getting into a comments session. Thus far, the parties have had the opportunity to present their positions.

There are still two speakers on my list: Mr. Godin and Mr. Coderre. I would ask you to focus your remarks on the essential aspects of the motion. We're starting to know the views of committee members, and I believe we'll be ready to move on to the vote very soon.

Mr. Godin, go ahead, please.

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

Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to paint a dark picture. In fact, although seven of its judges are bilingual and only one is a unilingual anglophone, the Supreme Court will never have a unilingual francophone. To carry on the profession of lawyer or judge, you must have been educated in English. So that problem will not arise. That's the first thing.

Second, there are moments when all Supreme Court justices must attend proceedings. It's not like in the provincial superior courts or appellate courts. In those courts, there may be only certain judges who have been selected in order to be sure that they are all bilingual. On the Supreme Court of Canada, there are nine judges, and there are important cases, brought by the government, that may concern the Constitution, or other very important cases. The nine judges sit on the Supreme Court, and people must plead before the nine judges. It is therefore possible that a citizen may find himself opposite a unilingual judge.

In my view and that of our witnesses, one can be competent in interpreting the law, but what happens if the judge does not understand what the other person is saying? With all due respect to our translators and interpreters, errors can be made and negatively influence the decision the Supreme Court should take. These are the reasons for our position. It's not a matter of painting a dark picture of the Supreme Court. Parliament has passed an act that recognizes that the country is bilingual. That's all we want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Coderre wants to take part in the discussion.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Are there any other speakers? I'm ready to wrap up, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

For the moment, you're the last on the list, Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I've been in active politics for 25 years, and I've been a member for 11 years. I was Secretary of State for Amateur Sport. My first term as a member was about official languages, and my second about agriculture and agri-food. I was Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, President of the Privy Council and, in particular, Minister responsible for La Francophonie. On each of my change-overs, I made sure—the Canadian Heritage people know this—that both languages were respected.

Today I'm witnessing a pathetic scene when I look at the Conservative government side. Let Mr. Lemieux do his job; that's fine: he is the parliamentary secretary, the pillar of the Prime Minister's Office.

I want to hail my friend Godin and my friends from the Bloc. They've clearly grasped the problem. I understand why Mr. Petit is a little uncomfortable. The committee's role is to ensure that we do our job as parliamentarians in English and in French. As Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, I changed sport policy. I forced the national federations to speak both languages. I had the Canadian Olympic Committee sign a memorandum of understanding following the insult suffered in Nagano, where things were done in English only. I made sure that, from that moment, the Canadian Olympic Committee would be able to do things in both languages, because we are first-class citizens as well. Canada is bilingual. That means that translation isn't enough and that we must respect both languages.

As Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I made sure—this was a historic first—that the first federal-provincial/territorial meeting was held in Manitoba, after 100 years of its existence. It was an unprecedented success. We wanted to continue the work that Sifton had started at the time; we wanted a new idea for immigration and to ensure that we could be inclusive with regard to the communities and that everyone could play his role fully in both languages. From that point on, every province had a bilingualism clause to ensure that we could work in that direction. It's not a panacea; it was a step in the right direction and the start of a beautiful, long march. In New Brunswick, I made sure that we signed specific agreements to ensure that foreign students could have specific reports in both languages so that we could win their cases in English and in French.

Mr. Chairman, we had unprecedented success in immigration in Manitoba because we adopted provisions that promoted the vitality of the French fact in that province. When we talk about immigration, we're talking about the Canada-Quebec agreement. When we talk about another major success, we're talking about the agreement with Manitoba.

When I was President of the Privy Council...

Mr. Chairman, I have a right to speak. You want us to talk about politics; we're going to talk about it!

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Coderre, I'm simply going—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

You have no right to cut me off, Mr. Chairman, unless you want to prevent me from speaking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Not at all. I simply want to urge you to put the emphasis on the content of the motion.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

That's the first time you've told me that. We were called hypocrites and they said we lacked integrity. I'm going to explain to him what we did since he cast doubt on it, Mr. Chairman.

What is pathetic is that, in fact, I didn't want to engage in Conservative politics today. I didn't attack the Conservatives. I used the word “ensure” because, as parliamentarians, francophones, anglophones, Canadians, we have a duty to do a job that represents the values of this country.

We're talking about the Supreme Court, about the court of last resort. Mr. Doucet said he had lost a case by a judgment of five to four, where the fifth judge neither spoke nor understood French. You have to understand, Mr. Lemieux, that translation alone is not enough. The laws are drafted in both languages, but in their original versions, as my colleague Godin said. We therefore have to ensure that the legal nuances and concepts are fully understood.

In the Liberal Party, we did some good things in Parliament: among other things, we appointed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a bilingual francophone. Did we only do good things? Probably not, but Parliament is a place of evolution. In that sense, I think my colleague Mr. Godin is right. It's not because not everything has been covered that you necessarily have to stop. Today, 11 years later, I find myself on the same committee, and it is with faith, interest and passion that I want to ensure that my constituents in the riding of Bourassa know that I'm going to defend them in both official languages.

When I go to Quebec or elsewhere in the country, I speak both languages because I think we are all first-class citizens. I know the Conservatives unfortunately want to do a hatchet job. I'm going to request a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman, so that everyone can live fully with his own conscience, which I respect.

However, where the motion states “That the Standing Committee on Official Languages recommend that the government ensure [...]”, does that imply that we're compelling the government? We want to ensure that people appointed to that court of last resort are able to understand us.

The fact that francophones must wait for two hours to be served in their language is unacceptable. It is also appalling that, in the court of last resort, we hear sentences like, “I didn't entirely understand.” But what do you want, the score is five to four. Que sera sera. In hockey, if the goaltender thought that way, the puck would go into his net a lot and he wouldn't win a lot of games.

I'm telling people that if they want to play politics, that's fine with me: that's my passion. We can play partisan politics, Mr. Lemieux. And you, my dear Petit, I didn't call you mean. There aren't any mean Conservatives today. I could recite you a whole litany, quote your leader at length and tell you that he has enough dinosaurs on his team to make a sequel to Jurassic Park, but I'm not going to dwell on that.

Mr. Chairman, I hope people will clearly understand that each of us will adopt a position on this motion not as Liberals, Bloquistes, New Democrats or Conservatives, but as parliamentarians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Coderre. Thank you as well for putting the emphasis on the content of the motion, particularly in the second part of your address.

Colleagues, we are discussing language issues dear to each of the members of this committee. No one around this table, in my view, can question the intent of the others. However, views may differ.

Two speakers have been added to the list, Messrs. Lemieux and Chong. Then, if I hope—

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Yes, Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

We're still talking about the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Yes, absolutely.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I thought Mr. Coderre was closing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

In fact, he was the last on the list, but—

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

But according to the rules, he was closing.