Official Languages Committee on May 25th, 2010

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

You just told me that thousands of young lawyers are learning French. I am sure there must be some in British Columbia who want to advance their careers and who may one day become judges because they made the effort to learn French.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Yes, but I believe that it was a very good thing that Beverley McLachlin was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. I believe she has served Canada very well for 20 or more years. Had the NDP bill been passed 20 years ago, she would not have been able to serve Canadians.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Had this bill passed 20 years ago, Ms. McLachlin might have learned French.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Are you unhappy with the way Ms. McLachlin has served Canada?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

I do not know Ms. McLachlin at all. You have mentioned her name, but I do not know her at all. I have no idea whether she is good or not, but had there been legislation in place 20 years ago requiring judges to be bilingual, Ms. McLachlin might have learned French and would have served the country as well as she apparently has.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

The Supreme Court has served Canadians very well for 143 years, without the need for this bill--

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

That is true.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

--and it has done so in both official languages.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Yes, but do you not think that if judges were bilingual, Canada would still be very well served? If they have been doing that for 143 years and our country has been officially bilingual for 40 years, could we not have bilingual judges?

I do not understand why a 69-year-old man would be forced to sleep in his car in order to register his grandchildren at a bilingual school. I do not understand that. As I said earlier, I have not been a member of Parliament for long, but there are a lot of things that I do not understand, including some of what you have said today.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

We certainly want Supreme Court justices to be bilingual, but it is not necessary to pass legislation in that regard. Furthermore, we believe that Canadians like Ms. McLachlin, who is not completely or perfectly bilingual, should not be discriminated against under legislation of this kind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gravelle.

We will complete our fourth round with Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is difficult not to pursue that line of questioning.

Minister, you say that this bill will divide the country, that it is supported mainly by the Bloc Québécois and that that is a shame for Canada. But it seems to me that comments like that only serve to degrade the work of members of the Bloc Québécois, who participate in the work of this Committee with a view to representing, as best they can, the opinion of their constituents. If we decided to support this bill, it is because we find it perfectly logical. Furthermore, it was tabled by Mr. Godin, who is a French Canadian, and not a sovereignist Quebecker. He, too, believes in bilingualism. That is what we are talking about today, at the Official Languages Committee. My feeling is that the Bloc Québécois could not have voted against this kind of legislation, because it is the logical way forward.

You say that, under this legislation, Supreme Court justices will have to be completely, perfectly bilingual, and that you are opposed to that. But, as I understand it, that is not the case. I believe the bill simply says that justices will have to understand English and French. In my own case, I consider myself to be bilingual. I do not speak English perfectly, because I do not speak it often, but I do understand it. I can at least say that I am bilingual. I often listen to testimony in English—in other words, in the original language. I think that is the logic behind this bill. As Mr. Gravelle was saying, if that requirement had been incorporated into legislation 40 years ago, we would not be talking about it today. It would be considered perfectly normal. I am surprised to hear the Minister, who is supposed to defend bilingualism in Canada, say that demanding that these people understand both languages would be divisive.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

To be perfectly frank, I do not think you are as familiar with the content of this bill as one might believe. The bill states that, for every appointment, the individual being appointed must understand French and English without the help of an interpreter.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Yes, exactly.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

In light of the highly technical discussions that occur at the Supreme Court, that is an extremely stringent requirement in terms of bilingualism. We are not in favour of that. I agree with John Major when he says that this bill makes no sense and that sacrificing competency in favour of language skills is a mistake. He is of the view that it is absolutely critical to choose the most competent lawyers, in terms, not of their language proficiency, but their skill in a court of law. I agree with him.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I understand your position, which you have repeated several times now. You think that competency is only important in English, and that it cannot be demanded in French.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

That is not what I said.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

My colleague asked you a question earlier about litigants—the people who need to go through our judicial system to have their case heard. The possibility for these Canadians, whom you are asking to respect the two official languages, to at least be heard in their own language is not a priority for you. The priority is to respect unilingualism.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

No. For 143 years, the Supreme Court has listened to whomever--

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

We know all about the past, Minister. Here we are talking about the future, which we are trying to improve.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I do not think this bill improves the process for selecting judges. The current process works very well. The Supreme Court is bilingual.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

According to you, it works well. Fine.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have one minute left.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I am going to give it to my colleague.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Minister, you are suggesting that it would be impossible to implement this bill or to find enough Anglophones who would be capable of making rulings or performing their duties in French. Does that not demonstrate that the very nature of Canada means it is impossible for Quebec litigants to have a trial before the Supreme Court of Canada where people would speak their language perfectly? Can you imagine judges not speaking French in an independent Quebec? I think they would all have that ability.