Evidence of meeting #55 for Official Languages in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was move.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:40 a.m.
Bloc
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Before that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to respond to your comment. I understand what you said, but I have two questions.
First, how is it that in this bill we can dictate what language is to be used by Supreme Court justices, but we are not able to apply that to the Governor General?
Second, otherwise, who is going to do it? What act can we include a provision like this in, if not this one?
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
I guess you are asking our experts.
Ms. Boyer, you have the floor.
10:40 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions, Department of Canadian Heritage
I will turn this one over to Mr. Newman.
10:40 a.m.
Senior General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
You ask quite a big question. As you well know, there have been bills in the past that sought to amend the Supreme Court Act precisely to add language requirements when appointing justices. Then the Supreme Court became constitutionally entrenched. The Supreme Court recognized that it was part of our constitutional architecture in the Reference Re Supreme Court Act in 2014. Since then, no further amendments to the Supreme Court Act have been made, because the composition of the Supreme Court is constitutionally entrenched in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
This bill seeks to extend to the Supreme Court a provision that has existed since 1988 and applies to all federal courts except the Supreme Court. However, this remains an institutional requirement. It says that the Supreme Court should act to ensure that when justices hear a case before it, those justices can hear it without the assistance of an interpreter. It is up to the Supreme Court to comply with this institutional requirement.
With respect to this new requirement, or expansion of the requirement that already exists for other federal courts, we believe that in 2023 the Supreme Court is in a position to do what it may not have been in a position to do in 1988, when an exception was made for it. The justices appointed to the court are currently bilingual. There is no requirement attached to their appointment.
Now let's go back to the appointment of the Governor General. The Governor General is appointed by the Queen, or rather the King now, just as the Lieutenant Governor is appointed by the Governor General. The office of Queen or King, as well as the office of Governor General, are protected under section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This makes it very difficult for Parliament to claim the power to add conditions of appointment.
The appointment of the Governor General falls under the royal prerogative, and the appointment of the Lieutenant Governor falls under section 58 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
10:45 a.m.
Senior General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
No language requirement is attached to the appointment.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Thank you, Mr. Newman.
I have ruled that amendment CPC‑53 is out of order. You can do only one thing right now. I gave this a little bit of time because I was curious to hear the argument myself.
Mr. Godin, are you challenging my ruling?
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
That's fine.
Madam Clerk, you may call the vote on the challenge to my ruling.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Before I adjourn, because I see the clock ticking away, I remind you that I had mentioned that amendments CPC‑53, CPC‑54 and LIB‑36 deal with similar measures. I have ruled that amendment CPC‑53 is out of order.
With that, I'll leave you to think about what's coming. We now adjourn until the next meeting at 12:30 p.m. We are changing rooms. We will be in room 425. I would ask those participating virtually to log in at least 10 minutes early, and those attending in person to at least be on time, in order to save some time.
The meeting is adjourned.
