Debates of May 26th, 2009

Business of the House

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The House has heard the terms of the motion? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

(Motion agreed to)

Public Safety and National Security

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, May 5, your committee has considered Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Customs Act, and agreed on Tuesday, May 26 to report it without amendment.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in relation to Bill C-29, Canadian Agricultural Loans Act.

(Bill C-29. On the Order: Government Orders:)

May 26, 2009—Bill C-29, An Act to increase the availability of loans for the purpose of the establishment, improvement and development of farms and the processing, distribution or marketing of the products of farming by cooperative associations—Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

(Bill concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)

Canadian Agricultural Loans Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-232, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Supreme Court Act

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise on Bill C-232, which amends the Supreme Court Act. I am in favour of this bill not only because it was introduced by an hon. member from New Brunswick, where I come from, but also because I think official bilingualism is very important for New Brunswick and the entire country. Bill C-232 is intended to amend the Supreme Court Act in this direction.

Judges will be chosen from the people described in clause 1 and will have to understand French and English without the help of an interpreter. Canada’s francophones have a right to be served in their own language, especially in the courts and most especially in the Supreme Court. That is a basic right for all Canadians, regardless of whether they live in Quebec or in my riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

Like many other francophones in Canada, the Acadians in my riding are not all bilingual by any means. They find it hard to express themselves and understand various expressions in English. We speak English or French depending on how we learned our mother tongue. I learned French on the rinks and in the schools of New Brunswick, and I married an Acadian woman. It is the language I support here.

The Supreme Court justices should be able to understand and speak French. Canada is a bilingual country and who better to set an example than the judges of the highest court in the land? I think that all members of Parliament should understand the importance of this bill and support it. Canada is a country that was built by the French and English. We should ensure, therefore, that everyone is served in the language of his or her choice, especially before the Supreme Court.

There are laws in this country guaranteeing linguistic rights. The first is section 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says that “English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges...”. It is a matter of equality. This was not the situation in 1986 when the Supreme Court heard the case of the Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, and when the Supreme Court wrote that there was no equality right for French in this country. That was corrected, however, in the Supreme Court’s Beaulac decision. In addition, section 18 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says “...both language versions [French and English] are equally authoritative”. This means there is equality under Canadian law.

In English, the Official Languages Act says that any journal, record, act of Parliament, et cetera, shall be made, enacted, printed, published and tabled simultaneously in both languages, and most importantly, both language versions are equally authoritative. This is the law of the country.

In the case of Société des Acadiens v. Association of Parents, it was not accepted that an accused had a right to translation when being presented with a criminal charge. As I mentioned, this was corrected by the decision in Beaulac, a 1999 Supreme Court decision, under the pen of then Mr. Justice Bastarache. It was decided to completely reject the law in the case of the Société des Acadiens and say that, “To the extent that Société des Acadiens stands for a restrictive interpretation of language rights, it is to be rejected”.

That has been the law of the country with respect to accused persons since 1999. There were two judges in that decision, the late Antonio Lamer and the current sitting member, Justice Binnie, who disagreed with the decision, but on the grounds that a criminal case should not be purported or extended to make constitutional law. Whether or not we agree with those justices is a matter of debate here.

That is the first and best reason why we should follow this bill. There is another reason though and it is the best evidence rule. This is a common law-created rule which suggests that from the 18th century forward, the best evidence is to be used. What does that mean? It means that the best the nature of the case will allow is the quote from the 1745 decision of the English courts.

What better evidence can there be before a judge of the highest appellate court in this country, who wants to interpret what is being said, other than to understand exactly what is being said? It goes to the very nature of advocacy before our highest court.

In a bit of a segue, we are talking about all nine judges of the Supreme Court being able to understand, not necessarily speak but understand, both languages. Imagine that if there were judges who came from the province of Quebec or parts of New Brunswick where there are only unilingual French-speaking candidates, imagine the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. If an English litigant hired the best lawyer he could find in Ottawa to make an argument at the appellate level on a very important case to that litigant, and the judges were divided four-four and it came down to one judge who could not understand English, there would be an outcry. The English litigant would say, “He is not listening to my argument. He is listening to the interpreter”.

We all admire our interpretation people in this Parliament and across the courts. It is a wonderful instrument, but the very nature of interpretation means that they are taking words and forming them in their own artistic belief as to what the speaker intends. That may work in solemnizing marriages. It may work in giving out change in an arcade, but it does not work at the highest level of advocacy in this country.

The advocates who are before the Supreme Court of Canada will tell us that 90% of the cases that are decided by the court are decided when a judge of the court asks them a question, and their response wins or loses the case for them. If that answer has to go through an artistic interpretation of what the advocate meant, justice is not being done.

There is an argument that maybe the best qualified individuals will not be chosen. That is like saying that eight of our nine Supreme Court justices right now are not the highest qualified judges in the country. I think they are.

The level of bilingualism in law schools all across this country has greatly improved over the years.

Many law faculties across this country teach common law in French and civil law in English, and the two marry quite well together.

Just a final word on the evils of translation. Translation is impossible. Interpretation is an art. An English language recording of a conversation may be put into evidence in court, but so will the transcript. That proves that in courts of law across this country, more evidence is better. Better understanding is the best evidence rule, and as I said at the beginning of my speech, all of that sensible, irrefutable, logical argument that we have to have the best evidence and the advocates have to be understood in the language they use is trumped in this case.

Canadian law reflects the equality of Canada’s two official languages, that is to say, English and French.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the member for Acadie—Bathurst. I have known him for many years and I know he is very committed in the fight to promote French, recognition, access for those appearing in court to their mother tongue and full and complete justice delivered in French.

I have no difficulty imagining areas of Canada where this situation is mishandled. In more fundamental terms, the merit of this bill is in its attack on the Supreme Court, the ultimate court of justice. We know this court's role. It is not only the guardian of rights. Of course, it has had the job of interpreting the meaning of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since 1982. It has also has the job of keeping the law current. In doing so, it can invalidate certain provisions of the law or add to sections of law that may be considered incomplete.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst rightly points out that, we should expect realistically that the people who have been appointed to the Supreme Court can understand both English and French without the help of an interpreter. The member for Acadie—Bathurst belongs to a party with very specific ideas on the appointment of judges and with which I have generally agreed.

It is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. Parliamentarians were consulted regarding the two latest appointments. I was on one of the committees myself. I recall that it involved appointing a judge to represent the prairies, Manitoba, specifically. With the current President of the Treasury Board, who was Minister of Justice, we looked at one judge's candidacy. When he appeared before us, it was very clear to us that he had no skill in French. He claimed to understand it and I did not doubt him. He was a worthy candidate. He had a good record and was very erudite, well versed in jurisprudence, and clearly had the ability to write—qualities of some importance in interpreting the law. I repeat that, in terms of his knowledge of the law, he was beyond reproach. However, it was troubling that the government was making this appointment. It was of some concern that the government lacked sensitivity and was putting forward a candidate who did not know French.

I put the question to this judge, who now sits on the Supreme Court. I asked him if he did not find it was a handicap not to know French. It is one thing to not know civil law, since it is not the legal tradition in the other provinces. But to not know French in the Supreme Court can be a problem when counsel and parties appear and a judge wants to evaluate—perhaps not so much the evidence, because it has been assessed at the trial level—or understand briefs, when points of law are raised or new law is being created. Only one jurisdiction, a single court, can change the law, and that is the Supreme Court. The other courts are limited to interpreting the law and remaining true to the intent of the lawmaker, but the Supreme Court can help to change the law.

Here is one example. In 1995, a legal challenge concerning sexual orientation was taken to the Supreme Court

In 1982, when the constituent drafted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, some members, including my colleague and friend Svend Robinson, who was then the member for Burnaby—Douglas, suggested that sexual orientation should be included in the charter. Of course, I was not in the House at the time, because I was barely 20 years old. So, in 1982, some parliamentarians proposed to add sexual orientation as a protected right under section 15. However, that request was rejected.

At the time, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was the Minister of Justice. Unfortunately, the groups that wanted sexual orientation to be included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not succeed in their endeavour. This was followed by a very broad movement that lasted for several decades. The issue went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1995, in the Nesbit and Egan case, the court ruled that section 15 must be construed as including sexual orientation. This is a very good example of the power, the ability and the prerogative of the Supreme Court of Canada to bring about progress in the law.

The proposal made by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst regarding appointments is a very reasonable one. In fact, I cannot think of any instance where our colleague did not act reasonably, because he is himself a reasonable and moderate person. So, it is very reasonable to ask us to include a requirement to understand English and French without the assistance of an interpreter.

Again, how can one truly render justice if one cannot read the submissions, or listen to the representations of all the counsel? Is there not also a symbolic value involved? If one is appointed to the highest court in the land, should one not be responsible for knowing French?

I have not had the opportunity to discuss it with the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst but, in my opinion, if a person is not perfectly bilingual but is committed to improving his knowledge of French, then this person should also be considered for the job.

However, there must be an obligation to achieve the desired results. Ultimately, when a judge is sitting on the bench to issue his first ruling or to hear the parties, whether by leave to appeal to the court or otherwise, that judge will have to know French and be familiar with that language and its subtleties. As we know, law is often about nuances, it can be convoluted and subtle, and it often requires us to be able to get into the substances, the nuances and the interpretations.

Of course the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. The Bloc first came here in 1990. In 1993, our parliamentary group expanded its representation under the skilful leadership of Lucien Bouchard. Also, as early as in 1995, my former colleague, Suzanne Tremblay—and some parliamentarians probably remember her—was given the responsibility, in Mr. Bouchard's shadow cabinet, of the dialogue that we must maintain with francophones outside Quebec.

I remember that Mr. Bouchard, as leader of the Bloc Québécois—and a strong believer in the francophonie outside Quebec and in the necessary friendship and solidarity link that had to be established—announced a policy in Shediac, in 1994, entitled “Francophones d'Amérique : le temps d'agir”. The way we already understood the rights of francophones outside Quebec back in 1994, it included the whole issue of the administration of justice and, ultimately, that of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I am going to conclude by congratulating the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst. I hope that all parliamentarians will support this balanced and moderate bill, which certainly deserves to be passed.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too am extremely proud to support this important bill, Bill C-232, introduced by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. The bill proposes an extremely simple criterion for determining whether a person can be appointed to the Supreme Court or not:

In addition, any person referred to in subsection (1) may be appointed a judge who understands French and English without the assistance of an interpreter.

It is difficult to determine the degree of understanding of another language necessary to carry out a task. In Quebec, the first criteria were set out under legislation governing the practice of certain professions some 45 years ago. These requirements changed over the years and were in particular incorporated into bill 22, the first recognition of French as the official language of Quebec. They are now part of the Charter of the French Language. For instance, as a general rule, in order to become a member of a profession, to join a profession, a person must have the appropriate knowledge of the French language to practice that profession.

There are many pitfalls along the path to that knowledge. I remember the language tests of the day when I worked as a lawyer for the Conseil de la langue française, and then for Alliance Québec. These are extremely delicate matters, and that is why I really like this very simple and direct choice which does not require anything further. It simple states that one must be able to understand the English and French languages without someone else interpreting them.

Others have pointed out the importance of being able to grasp subtleties, and very often judges need to grasp and work with certain complicated ideas and concepts. We are spoiled here in the House. We have world-class interpretation. We are indeed extremely lucky to be able to count on the remarkable contribution of these women and men who work so closely with us. I use that order because the women are by far the majority.

In terms of the law, it is not always the same. I was also responsible for the translation of Manitoba’s laws. I revised the translation of all of Manitoba’s laws and regulations after the Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that Manitoba had to repair a historic wrong and start translating all its laws. I mention this point in particular to illustrate the importance of the message. Today, again, Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, was talking about the urgent need to have bilingual judges on the Supreme Court. Apart from the reasons I just mentioned, that is to say, how important it is to understand the nuances and so forth, requiring these judges to be bilingual is a powerful symbol.

When someone is a member of a linguistic minority, whether an anglophone in Quebec or a francophone in the rest of Canada, how can he expect the people before whom he is appearing to be sensitive to his case when it is about language rights—basic rights in a society with two official languages—if they are feeling defensive because they do not speak both official languages?

If someone never took the trouble to learn the other language or never was encouraged to do so, will he have the necessary sensitivity to decide a case of this kind? When I say someone who never took the trouble, I do not mean to criticize. We should look at it the other way around. What an incentive it would be for young law students to go back to school in order to perfect their knowledge of French. They could choose to have an internship with a company or a judge in order to improve or polish their latent knowledge of French, which they had learned a little in high school or in French immersion but which they had never really worked on.

We have two legal systems in Canada. We are bijural, therefore, in addition to bilingual. The common law can be expressed as well in French as in English, as I just mentioned in the case of Manitoba. Quebec’s civil law has an English version which can be found in the Civil Code of Quebec. Both versions are equally authoritative, as has been determined, expressed and reinforced by the Official Languages Act and by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

How can we continue with this anomaly? When people appear before any other court whose judges are appointed by the federal government, it is a constitutional right to have a judge who can listen to them, serve them and understand them in their own language.

There is only one exception. Do my colleagues know what it is? It is the Supreme Court. It is this incongruous exception that the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst wants to correct with Bill C-232, and that is why it is so easy to support him in this effort.

Canada is lucky to have two legal systems and incredibly lucky to have two official languages. I think that many people will see the powerful signal we are sending today as a reason to go and acquire a knowledge of French that is appropriate to the exercise of one of the highest offices in our country, a judge on the Supreme Court of Canada.

I listened closely to the Liberal member who spoke earlier. I do hope that what he said reflects the official position of the Liberal Party of Canada. We will see when the time comes to vote. That said, despite all that the Conservatives have said to try and convince us that they have recognized linguistic duality as a reality in Canada, I think they will vote against this bill, even though it is exceptionally clear. We shall see.

Anyway, we in the NDP are not speaking from both sides of our mouths on that issue. We do not hesitate to say that, with the opportunities we are given in this country to learn both languages, anyone who knows that a particular job requires that he or she be bilingual, will be motivated to learn his or her second language. This year is the 40th anniversary of the passage of the Official Languages Act. Similarly, anyone who aspires to a senior role in government now has an incentive to learn the other official language. Nearly all senior positions require a knowledge of both official languages.

I had the opportunity to work in several provinces. I worked on the political scene for a long time in Quebec and Quebec City. When I came to Ottawa, I was quite shocked, not to say disappointed. I had always thought—it was naive of me, I realize it now—that official bilingualism existed and was alive in the federal public service. As it turns out, that bilingualism was largely an illusion.

In parliamentary committees, one must not try to get an answer in French, even from people who have had to prove their knowledge of French in order to obtain the job that brings them before the committee. There is still a big difference between the two sides. The francophones who appear before the committee and who fill important roles within the administration always try to respond in English—even though English might be their second language and they have learned it, but it still might be a little difficult for them—to a Conservative member who asks a question in English, for example. They make an effort, even though they are francophone and they are working hard at their English to be able to answer.

I am our finance critic on the Standing Committee on Finance. Government officials sometimes appear before our committee. We know they have had to demonstrate some knowledge of French in order to advance to their position. I am thinking of the person responsible for financial institutions who appeared last year. Although we were asking this woman questions in French, she stubbornly refused to answer in French. She consistently answered in English. That is very common, especially in the financial sector, and it is unfortunate. Clearly, the incentive that once existed is no longer working or it is no longer enough to make people want to retain the French they have learned.

If this bill passes, I think all the students embarking upon their legal studies at one of Canada's law faculties in September 2009 will always bear in mind that, in order to make it to the most important position a lawyer can aspire to, they must possess knowledge of languages. I am convinced that if these young, brilliant students have not already taken the time to learn French, or English as the case may be, they will find the time and the incentive to do so, since this will push them closer to that level of excellence, which includes, in a society with two official languages, the imperative need to know both official languages.

For that reason, and in closing, I wholeheartedly support my colleague's proposal. Furthermore, I would like to congratulate him for finding the right text and wording, a way to express it, that will win everyone over.

I hope this will translate into a vote of support by the Liberals. We have already obtained the support of the Bloc. We will watch the Conservatives closely.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages). This bill would introduce a new requirement for judges appointed to the Supreme Court to understand English and French without the assistance of an interpreter.

The government firmly supports the promotion of English and French in Canadian society. As Canadians, we are proud of our bilingual institutions and especially the Supreme Court of Canada, which plays a fundamental role in our democratic society as the ultimate protector of the values set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government's commitment to ensuring our courts have sufficient linguistic capability to guarantee access to a court in one or the other of the official languages applies to the Supreme Court of Canada as well.

The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, makes the appointments to the Supreme Court. The justices in this court must be of the highest calibre. Accordingly, persons with the best legal knowledge and abilities must be chosen to fill the available positions.

The Supreme Court Act provides for the composition of the court and the number of judges. It provides that at least three justices must come from Quebec. The composition of the Supreme Court of Canada reflects regional representation. The rest of the judges appointed come from Ontario, the Atlantic provinces, the prairies and British Columbia. The practice of ensuring regional representation guarantees that the most highly qualified and deserving candidates in the country are appointed to serve on the Supreme Court.

That does not mean, however, that everyone appointed to the court must be bilingual. In fact, the special nature of the Supreme Court as the highest court in the land and the fact that it has only nine judges from the various regions of Canada prompted Parliament to make an exception to the application of subsection 16(1) of the Official Languages Act in 1988. Bill C-232 proposes to circumvent this exception. This would harm regional representation on the court.

The government's position is that the proposed amendments are not needed to guarantee access to the court in one or the other official language. The Supreme Court, as an institution, makes all its services and communications available in both official languages. Anyone appearing before the court has the choice of using English or French, in the presentation of both legal proceedings and arguments. The decisions of the court are also published in both official languages, and this helps establish ever expanding bilingual jurisprudence for all Canadians to consult.

The court shows on an ongoing basis that it is capable of performing its duties at the highest level in both official languages. There is nothing to indicate that the court has provided less than the highest quality legal services Canadians deserve and expect. I would ask hon. members to bear in mind the risk that the passage of this bill represents, especially since no one has implied that the justice meted out by the court is of anything less than the highest quality.

The proposed changes would make bilingualism a prerequisite for appointment. In view of the complexity and great importance of the cases heard by the court, judges must have more than perfect linguistic skills to understand subtle, complex legal arguments based on a profusion of factual evidence. An obligatory requirement like this would limit the pool of qualified candidates from parts of the country where the percentage of judges able to hear cases in both official languages is not as high as in Quebec or New Brunswick, for example.

The government obviously agrees that linguistic skills are a major factor in the process for selecting judges to sit on superior courts, including the Supreme Court. We will continue to give them ample consideration, as we did in our last appointment to the court, Justice Thomas Cromwell, an eminent jurist who is perfectly bilingual, highly qualified, and very worthy.

That being said, the Supreme Court is at the very apex of our legal system, and in view of the important role it plays, the government feels that the overriding factor in the appointment of judges is and must remain merit based on legal excellence and personal aptitude.

Bilingualism is an important factor in the evaluation of candidates, but only one factor among others, including proficiency in the law, sound judgment, work habits, honesty, integrity, a sense of fairness and a social conscience.

We are very aware of the fact that our courts must have sufficient linguistic capacity to provide equal access to justice in French and English.

We should also distinguish between institutional bilingualism, which is historically part of the government’s responsibility to ensure that Canadian citizens are served in both English and French, and individual bilingualism, as advocated in Bill C-232.

At the present time, the Supreme Court, as an institution, provides services of the highest quality in both official languages.

The effect of Bill C-232 would be that linguistic considerations would overshadow the most important consideration of all, merit, by reducing the pool of otherwise highly qualified candidates from parts of the country where there may be fewer lawyers and judges who are capable of handling cases in both official languages.

It is not necessary to run the risk that the merit principle will be pushed aside out of a concern for bilingualism. The court already fully meets its objective of ensuring that Canadians have a right to be judged in the official language of their choice. All court services and communications are provided in both English and French.

All the current judges on the Supreme Court, with one exception, are perfectly proficient in both official languages and able to try cases in either official language without an interpreter. The judges also have the benefit of ongoing language training.

High quality interpretation and translation services are provided during court hearings and all judges are assisted by one or more bilingual employees.

The current requirements of the Supreme Court Act regarding the composition of the Court and the historical practice of regional representation allow us to fulfill our important commitment to legal pluralism, while ensuring that the people of Canada are served by judges who are very distinguished and extremely proficient.

The current court structure has provided Canadians with a solid, independent legal branch that is the envy of free, democratic countries around the world.

The quality of the current members of the Supreme Court of Canada and their commitment to the job demonstrate how seriously the current government and previous administrations have always taken their responsibility to appoint judges to the highest tribunal in the land.

Bilingualism is one important factor in the process for selecting judges. However, it should not be allowed to outweigh the most important factor of all: a candidate’s merit and legal excellence.

For the reasons just outlined, we recommend that the members oppose Bill C-232.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. This bill is quite simple. It deals with the traditions that have existed at the Supreme Court of Canada for a long time. The Conservatives say that they will oppose the bill introduced by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, which puts in place something that is already a tradition in this country.

Why? It is quite simple. A Supreme Court justice is not fully competent unless he understands both common law in English and the civil code in French. This is the minimum qualification for becoming a Supreme Court justice. However, the Conservative government refuses to accept the facts. It is precisely because it is incapable of understanding the qualifications required in the Supreme Court of Canada that Bill C-232 was introduced by the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

We have just been told that the Conservative government does not think that British Columbians can speak French. That just goes to show how out of touch the Conservative government is with the people, particularly the people of British Columbia. In the past, the Minister of Finance has even said that his Canada starts at the Atlantic Ocean and ends at the Rocky Mountains. He left out British Columbia entirely. It is clear that the Conservative government does not understand that British Columbia is one of the provinces in which the francophone population is growing in absolute numbers.

When I was a child, there were only two francophone schools. Now there are dozens of them. We have sixty or so in British Columbia because we have francophones from all over. We have a whole rainbow of francophones from Africa, Asia, Europe, Quebec of course, Acadia and western Canada. They all speak French as their first language, and that is changing British Columbia tremendously.

That is not all. More students attend immersion schools in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada. Our schools are packed. Sometimes parents wait in line all weekend long to register their kids at these schools.

For the Conservative government to suggest that British Columbians cannot speak French is insulting. It is simply not true. It is insulting to the people of British Columbia and to people elsewhere in Canada.

With respect to qualifications, it is clear that people are going to immersion schools and even to management schools. These people understand French well, can speak it, and are studying law. At some point in time, they will meet the minimum requirements for the Supreme Court: they will understand common law in English and the civil code in French.

I certainly do not understand this drive by the Conservatives to lower standards. We have seen it in a whole variety of things, such as air safety, transportation safety, and food safety.

The Conservative government always seems to want to push for lower qualifications. There are two basic qualifications for a Supreme Court judge: the ability to understand the civil code in French and the ability to understand common law in English. Those are simple and important requirements only at the Supreme Court level. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that and that is why we have the bill that is before us today.

The idea that higher standards and stronger qualifications are not taken into consideration is something that I find objectionable. That we need a lower standard of service, that we do not need the qualifications that have served us well in the past seems, in many areas, to be the objective of the Conservative government.

That is why the Conservatives are opposing this simple but important private member's bill put forward by the member for Acadie—Bathurst. The bill would reinforce those qualifications and standards to ensure that every Supreme Court judge understands the civil code in French as well as common law in English. I would be equally opposed if the Conservatives appointed unilingual Francophones who do not understand common law in English because the function of the Supreme Court is too important to do that.

However, that is not what the Conservatives are saying. They seem to be saying they are just going to choose whatever standards they want. We have seen what that has meant in a whole variety of areas. We have seen poor financial management from the government. Those qualifications are unfortunate, but that is the net result. We have seen a whole variety of lower safety standards. We see this drive from the government that does not make sense.

I do not accept lower qualifications and I do not think any member of Parliament should. We should set a higher bar and this legislation would set the bar to what traditionally we all understood, that a Supreme Court justice needs to understand common law in English and the civil code in French. It is very simple. Nothing has to go through translation, nothing has to go through interpretation. Supreme Court judges must be able to function adequately in the two official languages, so that they can pass through the two legal codes that are often written in two different languages.

That is the issue that is before us. We hope that the Liberal Party of Canada will support this bill. We know that the Bloc Québécois said it would support the bill and that the NDP has always been consistent when it comes to the issue of official languages. It is not just the member for Acadie—Bathurst who is fighting a pitched battle to win respect for the official languages in Canada. The entire New Democratic Party has done so since it was formed, and not just at the federal level, but in all the provinces, including mine, British Columbia. It is the NDP that has brought about these changes to respect linguistic duality in Canada.

In British Columbia, a French-language school system was created under an NDP government, as in Saskatchewan. In Manitoba, the official languages bill was introduced and implemented by an NDP government. In Alberta, it was Léo Piquette, an NDP MLA, who pushed for respect for the official languages. In the Yukon, it was an NDP government that introduced the bill to respect French and English. In Ontario, the college system was put in place by an NDP government, and in the Atlantic provinces, NDP MLAs were among those who pushed hardest for language rights.

We are not two-faced. When a New Democrat talks about official languages in British Columbia, Manitoba or the Atlantic provinces, he or she pushes for mutual respect and linguistic duality. We do not act like certain other parties that may say they are in favour of the official languages in this House, but who start attacking the official languages as soon as they leave Ottawa.

We have seen this with the Conservative Party, with the Reform Party and, sadly, with the Liberal Party in western Canada. Outside Ottawa, the Liberal Party has always attacked francophones at the provincial level. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party has a sad history of saying one thing in Manitoba, British Columbia or Saskatchewan, but another thing in Ottawa.

We are consistent. We are the only party in the history of the country that has always been consistent on the issue of official languages. That is why we fully support this bill. That is also why we support the principle that a judge should have the qualifications to become a Supreme Court justice. In other words, judges must be able to understand common law in English and the civil code in French. That is why we will vote for this bill.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member who just spoke and the member who sponsored this private member's bill, I believe that all members can agree that the Supreme Court consistently demonstrates that it has the capacity to conduct its business at the highest level in both official languages and there is no indication that the court has provided less than the highest quality of justice.

There has never been any question that the quality of the decisions of our highest court is lacking or that there is a failure to indeed understand the law. Is the hon. member suggesting that the rulings of our Supreme Court are not impartial and objective when the justices use the interpretive services available? With the greatest respect, if this is the suggestion, then I must disagree in the strongest possible terms.

To the contrary, institutions such as the Supreme Court of Canada have enabled our country to forge an international reputation as a peaceful, democratic and stable society. The court is respected and admired all around the world and stands as a symbol of Canada's shared commitment to opportunity, fairness and the rule of law.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is concerned about the interpretation services at the Supreme Court and suggests his concerns are based on his experience with the interpretation service provided to this esteemed chamber. I do not think that the quality of interpretation, whatever the hon. member's concerns might be, is in any way relevant to this debate. The interpretation and translation services available at the Supreme Court are of the highest quality and the interpreters are professionals trained to capture the legal complexities of the arguments before the court.

No one can reasonably suggest that the judges of the Supreme Court are not able to fully appreciate and understand the representations made by lawyers during hearings. I am confident that the individuals appointed to the Supreme Court will continue to make an outstanding contribution to the work of the court and serve this country honourably. It is therefore essential that the best and the brightest be appointed on the basis of legal merit, excellence and personal suitability. Bilingualism is certainly an important factor to be considered prior to making an appointment, but must be weighed among many others.

I ask myself, would the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst like to see a highly qualified French jurist excluded from sitting on our highest court simply because he or she is not bilingual and does not possess the capacity to, in using the terminology of the hon. member, understand the subtleties of the law in the English language? I would suggest not. The hon. member's bill would do exactly that. It would exclude a brilliant mind from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada is in many respects a unique body because it usually sits collegially with all nine judges chosen from different regions of the country hearing some of the most important constitutional and legal cases of our times. Indeed, it was such considerations that militated in favour of exempting the Supreme Court from the duty imposed upon other federal courts in section 16 of the Official Languages Act in 1988.

I will again stress to hon. members the fact that this bill hinders regional representation by limiting the pool of qualified candidates in regions of the country where a percentage of potential qualified candidates capable of hearing a case in both official languages is not as high as in Quebec and in the member's home province of New Brunswick.

As the former president of the Canadian Bar Association said on the issue:

The CBA advocates appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada based solely on merit, and ultimately representative of the diversity of society as a whole. The CBA adds that bilingualism should be one aspect of merit in selecting candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court. Other qualities include high moral character, human qualities such as sympathy, generosity, charity, patience, experience in the law, intellectual and judgemental ability, good health and good work habits.

For all these reasons, I urge hon. members to oppose the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the House which, through the democratic process, has debated Bill C-232. This legislation is important for all Canadians using either official languages. My arguments can be summarized with the following question: do we accept the fact that our country has two official languages?

I also want to thank the members for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Hochelaga, Outremont, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Burnaby—New Westminster and Fundy Royal, for their comments.

I would like to correct something that the member for Fundy Royal said. He said that the member for Acadie—Bathurst had mentioned that interpreters in the House of Commons were less competent than other ones. I never said that, and the member should apologize. That is not what I said. I said that in committees—and this has nothing to do with the quality of our interpreters—when a person speaks rather quickly, like me, sometimes the interpreters cannot keep up with that person. They ask me to slow down. In committee, we often get messages from interpreters telling us that we talk too fast. They ask us to slow down a bit.

Let us imagine that we are at the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, and that a judge or a lawyer says that he did not understand something. This is the highest court in the land, in a country that claims to be bilingual, that has two official languages and that passes legislation in Parliament that is drafted in English and French. So, I am asking myself a question. When a judge has heard a case and returns to his office, does he take an interpreter with him to translate the French act, or to read the English legislation? Where is the justice here?

Four or five years ago, the current Prime Minister of Canada did not speak French as well as he does now. He has learned French, and I congratulate him for doing so. He knows that if he wants to serve our country, he must speak both languages. I will make no bones about the fact that, seven years ago, the NDP leader also did not speak French as well as he does now. He made an effort. However, the judges on the Supreme Court of Canada do not have to make that effort. They hear cases, but the citizens involved cannot go to the United Nations to appeal the decision. The Supreme Court of Canada is the last resort.

There will be a vote tomorrow evening. I am calling upon Parliament to support Bill C-232, which states clearly that the judge must be capable of reading and understanding the law in both of this country's official languages. Voting in favour of this bill at second reading means it will go to committee and there it will be studied and we will hear from experts. The Canadian Bar Association, the Association des juristes d'expression française du Canada, the Young Bar Association of Montreal, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Quebec Community Groups Network, and even the Premier of Quebec support the bill. They can see that it is a good bill. Why not study it in committee?

The Conservators choose not to. They do not even want it to go to committee. This is regrettable, coming from a government that claims to respect our two official languages. Even the Commissioner of Official Languages says it is essential to send a message. Even university spokespersons from Toronto say it would be a good thing. In four or five years, someone aspiring to a position on the Supreme Court will learn both official languages.

That would show respect for the two communities in our country.

I sincerely call upon the House of Commons for its support. This bill can be studied and then we will decide whether it will become law in this country, but let us give it a chance.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 6:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 27, 2009, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am here for the adjournment debate tonight because I asked a question in the House and did not receive a satisfactory answer. Some might say that I will not receive a satisfactory answer tonight, but I will give it one more try.

On February 12, I asked a question about the elimination of two programs that subsidized tours: PromArt and Trade Routes. The elimination of these programs really hurt artists who tour abroad. As I told the minister on February 12, if not for help from an Italian producer, La La La Human Steps, a dance company, would not have been able to go to Italy. It makes no sense that artists now have to ask foreign producers to cover their travel and shipping costs. Traditionally, in industrialized nations, artists, cultural organizations, dance and theatre companies offer their services to foreign producers, who pay their fee, and the home country covers travel and shipping costs for the artists, their sets and their costumes. That is how it has always been done. That is how every other industrialized country still does it.

So, in addition to the performers' fees for La La La Human Steps—which, as we know, is a very modern dance company—a foreign producer had to pay for their transportation. That is a huge blow to Canada's reputation and that of its artists. As we can see, the Conservative Government of Canada no longer wants to support its artists so they may travel abroad.

Just this morning, in today's paper, Alain Dancyger, executive director of Les Grands Ballets Canadiens, criticized the situation. Indeed, because of the Conservatives' incompetence and their refusal to subsidize a dance company like Les Grands Ballets Canadiens, the company is now facing a shortfall of $150,000. A dance company involves a lot of people and a lot of cargo, including sets and costumes. They needed $250,000 right off the bat every year in order to tour abroad. That is what the Canadian government had been giving them in subsidies through a program called PromArt, which had a budget of several million dollars. Thus, the executive director of Les Grands Ballets Canadiens, Alain Dancyger, strongly criticized the situation this morning. He said he was very embarrassed by the fact that he had to seek out funding from a country like Egypt. To depend on donations from Egyptian companies, because our own country—a G8 country—cannot support us, as he said, is unacceptable.

One must wonder what it will take for the Conservative government to listen to reason and restore the programs that have been eliminated. Of course, every time I ask a question of this nature, the government always plays me the same old broken record. It probably already has it queued up. It will say, “Our government has made record investments in culture”, which is not exactly completely accurate. It will add, “The Bloc Québécois voted against it.” I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois voted for this government's budget on May 10, 2006, and on March 27, 2007. I hope it will have some other arguments this time.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, if they keep asking the same question, they are going to get the same answer. It is like groundhog day here in the House. I get up every day and I think that maybe we will move on and we will get to something where we can actually establish that every answer I have given is in fact true and we will move on beyond that. However, as I say, it is groundhog day every day; it is the same question.

The hon. member has given me an opportunity to talk about this government's record. She cited a couple of groups in Quebec. I am proud to say that those groups have received, and do receive, substantial support from this government.

She said that I would mention that our government has put record funding into the arts. That is true. There was $540 million in budget 2009 and yes, the Bloc Québécois voted against it.

The Bloc also came up with a Bloc stimulus package, but what was not in the Bloc stimulus package was so much as a mention of the arts. Where was it? It is a pretty thick document. It is probably 50 pages long. The Bloc could not even work the arts in. If I were in the Montreal arts sector, I would be really upset with the Bloc. What can I say? The Bloc forgot about the arts sector.

Who did not forget about the arts community is the Conservative government. In budget 2009 we made an outstanding number of investments, more money than any government in history. The hon. member is well aware of this. In fact just to cite a couple of examples, there is $60 million in additional funding for cultural infrastructure projects; $20 million in new funding for training institutions; $100 million for festivals from coast to coast to coast; a $25 million endowment that will showcase emerging artists on the global arts scene. We have increased the funding for the Canada Council from $150 million a year to $181 million. That is a 17% increase. All the arts groups have come forward and thanked us for putting that additional money into the Canada Council because that is artists helping artists. That is what our government has done. We have increased the funding for the CBC each and every year that we have been in government. I hear from Quebeckers how popular Radio-Canada is. We have increased its funding each and every year. That is what this government has done.

What has the Bloc done? It produced a stimulus document that does not even mention the arts. I did not have anything to do with that. The Bloc did that. Maybe in her follow-up question the member will be able to explain why the Bloc forgot about the arts, why it voted against the arts when budget 2009 came up. The Bloc record in the last few months is kind of shameful, to be perfectly honest.

It is clear that this government is standing behind the arts. The member can look at our record and at the investments we have made. It is very clear we are standing behind the arts. We understand the value of a vibrant arts and culture sector in Canada. We are standing behind it.

What is also clear is that the Bloc forgot about the arts in its stimulus package. The Bloc also voted against the budget. It is also clear that each and every time I come into this House on the late show questions, it is groundhog day.