Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking today in support of the bill introduced by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.
It is a real pleasure for me to support my colleague's bill that promotes real equality in the two official languages of our country.
The bill amends the Supreme Court Act and introduces a new requirement for judges appointed to the Supreme Court to understand English and French without the help of an interpreter.
I am not perfectly bilingual but I am working very hard on my English skills. It is important for me to work at the House of Commons in Canada's two official languages.
A person who stands before judges in the Supreme Court of Canada has a right to be heard and understood in his or her mother tongue.
This bill promotes equal access to justice. The Supreme Court is Canada’s highest court and its entire membership is occasionally called upon to hear certain cases. For the litigants, the ruling can have serious implications. Unilingual judges must rely on third parties to understand oral arguments and written submissions, which can be problematic at times and result in poor interpretation.
While I have the utmost respect for translators, I think we need to recognize that simultaneous interpretation and translation have their limits. The bilingualism requirement for judges ensures that francophones and anglophones have equal access to justice.
It is important for me to speak about equality, equality between francophones like me and anglophones. People who want to work in the most important judicial institution in our bilingual country must respect our two official languages.
The equality of French and English in Canada has been recognized by the Supreme Court. Since Canada’s laws exist independently in the two languages, fluency in both official languages should be a prerequisite for appointment to the Supreme Court, just as there are other mandatory requirements that a candidate must meet before becoming a judge.
The Supreme Court is there to serve Canadians, whether their first official language is French or English.
Canada's laws are not written in one language and then translated; rather, they are co-drafted in both official languages, and neither language takes precedence over the other.
This means that the body of Canadian legislation exists independently in both official languages. It is therefore essential for Supreme Court judges to understand legislation as it is written, in its duality, so they might apply it in its entirety, without infringing on the rights of the litigants.
I would remind the House of a few important facts that are worth pointing out. In 2009, all of the Conservatives, including francophone Conservatives, voted against this bill at second reading when it was Bill C-232. They also opposed the bill at third reading in May 2010. Despite the Conservatives' opposition, Bill C-232 passed in the House of Commons in 2010. However, the Conservative senators used their majority in the Senate to block it, which is absolutely appalling, until an election was called in March 2011.
In addition to opposing Bill C-232, the Conservative government showed its utter contempt for francophones by appointing two unilingual judges to the Supreme Court.
The Prime Minister must respect equality too, but he does not do that. We really have proof that the government does not care about the rights of francophones in our country.
Having unilingual judges is problematic when deliberations take place behind closed doors, that is, without the assistance of an interpreter.
Judges always have to communicate their opinions, ideas, and knowledge in their second language. Consequently, they run the risk of being much less accurate when they are not bilingual. When all judges are functionally proficient in both official languages, everyone can use their language of choice.
By sending the message that bilingualism is not important, the government is discouraging young Canadians, including young western Canadians, from learning French. The government must instead work with its provincial partners to encourage French language training by improving immersion programs and increasing support to post-secondary institutions so that future lawyers can acquire solid skills in their second language.
A number of people agree with the official opposition, and I would like to share some of their opinions with the House. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has spoken out a number of times in favour of having bilingual Supreme Court judges. The Barreau du Québec has repeatedly expressed its support of the bill on bilingual Supreme Court judges. I quote:
Bilingualism should be among a Supreme Court judge’s required skills in order to ensure equal access to justice, and the Barreau du Québec’s position in this regard is categorical.
It is a fundamental right to be heard by a judge in one of the two official languages.
The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne also supports this bill:
The FCFA believes that all citizens have a right to be heard and understood before the highest court of Canada in their official language of choice, without the assistance of an interpreter.
Serge Rousselle, a law professor at Moncton University specializing in language rights and past president of the Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick, also supports this bill:
Bilingualism is a required skill for Supreme Court judges. To fully grasp an oral argument in a field where the subtleties of one official language or the other can be critical, the importance of being understood directly by the members of this court, without the assistance of an interpreter, seems obvious.
I quoted a number of people whose opinions are similar to ours. I think it is very important for a Supreme Court judge to be bilingual. We must remember that people involved in the legal system have rights, have the right to be heard and, especially, have the right to be heard in the language of their choice—in their first language, whether that is French or English.
I would never put myself forward to be a Supreme Court judge. I do not have that ambition. I do not have the right education, of course, but I am also not bilingual. In a bilingual country like ours, someone who is highly trained and manages to become a judge, which is already a rather important and difficult job to get, also has the opportunity to learn a second language.