Debates of May 1st, 2014

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I dropped my earphone. I am not sure why we did not do—what? I did not catch what it was we did not do. Perhaps the hon. member might repeat that, please.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be my pleasure.

The first nations asked that the draft bill be changed to meet the five stated objectives in accordance with their requests and desires.

Why was that not done?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that consultation was done and there was an opportunity for people across the country to give feedback. I am not quite sure what we are talking about here. As far as I know, the consultation covered off questions that arose.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2012, 72% of first nations members living off reserve who had completed high school had a job, compared to 47% without a high school diploma. The unemployment rate for Canadians age 25 to 29 without high school, the majority of whom are first nations, is almost double that of high school graduates, 16.4% versus 8.8%.

Could the member for Palliser say why our government believes that the current situation is neither acceptable nor sustainable?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that we said we were going to educate young people on reserve and then they would take their place in society. What we forgot to deal with was the fact that the curriculum that is offered in schools across Canada is not necessarily the curriculum that is offered on reserves.

We have to make sure we meld the two curricula together, so that both are captured and nothing is lost in the educational process for those students. That means bringing provincial curricula together with curricula for reserve schools.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill itself purports to give native groups the right to control their own education and yet it says, and I will read it aloud:

Subject to the regulations, the council of a First Nation is to offer English or French as the language of instruction and may, in addition, offer a First Nation language as a language of instruction.

My question for the member is this, would this then limit the ability of a first nation to offer native language as the only language of instruction for young children as a way of immersing them in their culture and language, as they do in several first nation schools around the country? This would therefore become illegal by this legislation.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, across Canada instruction occurs in either English or French. There are options for immersion programs in French. Hutterite colonies teach German in an immersion setting after the regular school year. Right now, most schools on reserve teach their own language in kind of an intermittent fashion without prescribed times of attendance, as a rule. It is something that has grown with the reserve.

Is there a better way to do it? There probably is if we all sit down with the chief and the council and design a program that could start in September and finish in June that would mesh with English and/or French. There are ways to combat that, but we simply have not addressed that. I really cannot believe that we get stopped and cannot move forward. I think we can. We just have to listen to each other and make sure that when we go back to the table, we are prepared to implement what we heard being asked for implementation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate with the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia, I will let him know there are about 13 minutes remaining before we wrap up debate on government orders. Of course, any unused time out of the 20 minutes he has will be taken up when the House next resumes debate on the bill.

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-33, First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act.

Bill C-33 is the product of decades of dialogue and study. It was shaped by the unprecedented and extensive consultations our government held over the past 15 months with hundreds of first nations leaders, educators, parents, and community members across the country. Our government heard the concerns raised about first nations education and responded with a commitment to work with the Assembly of First Nations and other first nations leaders to create a better education system for first nations students. First nations control of first nations education means that first nations have the mechanism that will help them to strengthen accountability for results for their students.

I want to talk specifically about the accountability tools and measures that the act would help provide to first nations parents and communities. Across Canada and around the world, parent involvement in education at home and in schools leads to higher academic performance and higher graduation rates. Parent and community involvement is a central feature of the long-standing call for first nations control over first nations education. In fact, parents and communities can play a large role in the success of the school and its students.

Clause 25 of the bill legislates a voice for parents and community members, in particular elders and youth, in the development of school policies and programs, particularly those related to first nations languages and cultures.

We know that children benefit when parents and communities participate in the decision-making of the overall management and daily operations of education systems. For first nations, encouraging formal and informal involvement in education is not only a way to support student success, a worthy goal in itself, but also to integrate culture and languages into curriculum and school activities. Our government has seen the benefit this brings to individual students and to the community as a whole.

The first nations of the Treaty 4 territory in southeastern Saskatchewan is just one example. Community development and participation are the starting point for every aspect of the Treaty Four student success program, which promotes literacy and numeracy, and encourages children to stay in school. Involving first nations elders, leaders, parents, educators, youth, culture, language, and traditional values are as fundamental to the program as reading and writing. Local involvement increases local control.

The first nations control of first nations education act would do exactly what its name suggests. It would provide authority to first nations leaders, elders, and parents where education is concerned. Under the proposed legislation, first nations would choose their governance models and control their systems of education with the benefit of stable and sustainable statutory funding.

On February 7 of this year, the Prime Minister announced the historic agreement between the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations to proceed with the final drafting and introduction of the first nations control of first nations education act.

The Prime Minister stood with the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations and announced $1.9 billion in new funding through three streams: statutory funding with an unprecedented rate of growth, transitional funding to support the new legislative framework, and funding for long-term investments in on-reserve school infrastructure.

All of this funding would be in addition to the $1.55 billion that our government already provides to first nations for education on an annual basis.

Furthermore, the new funding would be subject to a 4.5% escalator that replaces the 2% funding cap that the Liberals put in place. This would ensure that funding for first nations education is stable, predictable, and sustainable for years to come.

These statutory funding provisions meet one of the five conditions for success outlined by the Assembly of First Nations for education systems that are grounded in first nations' languages and cultures. As indicated by the AFN in a recently published analysis, the rest of the bill meets all the other conditions.

In the words of the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, this act means getting the Minister of Indian Affairs “out of our lives” on education as well as having fair funding and oversight that first nations themselves design.

As the National Chief indicated, part of getting the minister out of first nations' lives when it comes to education means that it would be up to first nations to decide for themselves whether they want to operate their own schools, join a first nation-led education authority, or enter into an agreement with a provincial ministry of education. Each first nation would determine which governance option would best meet the educational needs of their students.

Regardless of the governance structure under which they operate, every school would be accountable to parents, communities, and students. This would be in contrast to the current approach, which burdens first nations with reporting requirements to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

Under this bill, the chosen educational authority would be ultimately accountable and would have the responsibility to ensure that the education provided to the students is in accordance with the standards and regulations outlined in this act.

The joint council of education professionals would be composed of professionals recognized for their knowledge and expertise in first nation education. It has been alleged that this council would be appointed solely by the minister and be used as a vehicle for unilateral control. On the contrary, half of the joint council membership would be made up of individuals selected by the AFN, and the minister would be required to seek its advice in a number of prescribed circumstances.

Our government has heard from parents and first nations that they need to participate in the development of regulations and standards. Our government and the Assembly of First nations have agreed to collaborate on the development of necessary regulations. In fact, the joint council would consult with first nations and provide important advice both to the minister and to first nations on regulations.

First nations would have the authority to build on the proposed minimum standards required for schools and students, with input from parents and communities. The act would establish five core standards: access to education, a recognized certificate or diploma, certified teachers, a minimum number of instructional hours and instructional days, and transferability of students between systems without penalty. All other decisions on standards would be made by first nations, which would control schools.

The rigour of the standards in this proposed legislation would ensure that first nation parents would know that their children were receiving a quality education, while the flexibility would reinforce first nation control and encourage incorporation of cultural and language teaching as each first nation sees best.

Going to school is an essential experience of childhood. It is important that parents and communities feel confident in the quality of education their child receives. That is why our Conservative government believes that parents and communities need to have a strong role in creating a school environment that respects and reflects community values.

Throughout the consultation to develop this proposed legislation, first nations youth and parents made it clear that education was more than a piece of paper or a path to a job. Education is fundamental to nationhood and identity. Students want to create a future where they can access the kind of education that leads to a successful life, not only for themselves but also to support their families and contribute to their communities.

This bill recognizes the ability and responsibility of first nations to educate their students. It recognizes the importance of treaty and aboriginal rights, which are protected by the Constitution of 1982. Bill C-33 would support accountability to parents and communities. This would contribute to more children and youth succeeding at school and in life.

In my constituency of Kootenay—Columbia, the Ktunaxa nation is a proud nation that has some of its education on reserve, starting with grades 1 to 6, and it is starting to reintegrate its language. That is one of the most important parts of this entire bill, for first nations to be able to integrate their own language and feel proud about their history and language, and to be able to pass that on from generation to generation. It is something that has been missed, and this bill would capture that important part of first nations education.

With that, I look forward to any questions.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to leave those questions for another time. In fact, the hon. member will have precisely ten minutes available for questions and comments, should he wish it, when the House next resumes debate on this question.

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

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-208, 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

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as Liberal critic for official languages, following my colleague, the hon. member for Charlottetown and the Liberal justice critic, I am pleased to second Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), introduced by our colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

This bill would require that in the future anyone appointed to the Supreme Court have a command of both official languages and be able to understand them without the assistance of an interpreter. The bill is not retroactive and therefore sitting judges would remain on the bench.

Under the Official Languages Act, every federal court is required to ensure that the language chosen by the parties during proceedings is understood by the judge, or other officers who hear any given proceedings, without the assistance of an interpreter. There is one exception, though: the Supreme Court. In practice, this bill would put an end to this exception.

The Liberal Party has been a long-time champion of language rights, linguistic duality and the exercise of the Official Languages Act.

The Liberals also have no problems supporting this bill given that we introduced a similar bill ourselves, in 2007-08, during the 39th Parliament. This was Bill C-548, amending the Official Languages Act to extend the requirement to understand both official languages to justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. The bill was introduced by the hon. member for Bourrassa at the time, the Hon. Denis Coderre, the new mayor of Montreal. I recall that bill as I had the honour of being the leader of the official opposition at the time.

More than five years later, let us hope that this time will be the right time and that this Parliament will give French-speaking Canadians the assurance that they will be understood by the nine most important judges in our legal system.

And why would this Parliament not give that assurance to the country's francophones? Is it not high time to do so, 45 years after the Official Languages Act was passed?

Those who oppose this bill claim that the selection of judges must be a matter of competence only. However, adequate command of both official languages is precisely part of the competence required to be fully able to treat all Canadians fairly.

Both the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Minister of Justice confirmed that we now have a big enough pool of bilingual jurists from across the country who fully meet the appropriate standard of merit and legal excellence to appoint bilingual judges to the Supreme Court. Clearly, this pool will grow bigger every year if Parliament sends young Canadian lawyers the message that bilingualism is a requisite if they wish to reach the top of the Canadian legal system.

Our judges must always prove their worth in terms of knowledge of the law, judgment, work habits, ability to write and communicate, honesty, concern for fairness and social conscience, but they must also be bilingual.

We are not here to criticize the unilingual judges of the past, some of whom were great legal minds who did wonderful things for the cause of French and official language minorities in Canada. At one time we had British judges and they too did great things, but that did not stop us from wanting Canadian judges.

It is therefore reasonable to say that the judges of the past would have been even better equipped had they been able to understand the language of Molière or Vigneault.

The need is there. About 30% of the documentation that Supreme Court judges need to study is in French. Judges who cannot read French have to rely on the summaries provided by clerks, who are often talented but of course have neither the skill nor experience that a judge has.

During hearings, unilingual judges have to follow debate using simultaneous interpretation. No matter how good it is, there can be errors, misunderstandings or inaccuracies. When judges speak among themselves about cases before them, only one of them needs to be unilingual for all the discussions to, inevitably, be held in English, even for cases where most of the documentation is in French. In practice, French-speaking judges are required to write their drafts in English.

Opponents of Bill C-208 who state that requiring bilingualism would undermine the competence of judges must know that this is precisely the argument that was used against the adoption of the Official Languages Act. Parliament of 1969 did not let this objection stop it, and everyone takes the credit today. Therefore, let us be inspired by the wisdom of the members who came before us.

Not surprisingly, support for this bill is coming in from all sides.

Of course, the National Assembly of Quebec, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Graham Fraser, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, and the Quebec Community Groups Network all support Bill C-232. Also the Canadian Bar Association adopted a resolution in support of institutional bilingualism at the Supreme Court of Canada during its annual meeting in August 2010.

L'Association des juristes d'expression française du Canada de common law adopted a resolution in 2010 affirming its support for Bill C-232. The Quebec Bar Association supports this bill. In 2010, the president of the Young Bar Association of Montréal stated:

Functional bilingualism must be a minimum competency and not limited to being simply a consideration…

I would like to provide other support, but my time is short.

Voting for this bill is betting on Canada, a country that is lucky to have two official languages that are international languages, big windows on the world; a country that is lucky to have two legal systems, the civil code and common law, which allows it to share the legal traditions of 80% of countries around the world.

With this bill, we will ensure that this increased strength that our bilingualism and bijuralism bring us will become part of the highest court in our legal system and will help our Supreme Court become one of the most respected in the world.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to express my support for Bill C-208.

This bill would amend the Supreme Court Act to require that only judges who can communicate well in French and English without the assistance of an interpreter be appointed to the Supreme Court.

I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who is the NDP's official languages critic, for the remarkable diligence he demonstrated in introducing this bill.

I mention his remarkable diligence because, despite the Conservative government's opposition to this bill, my colleague never gave up. He kept fighting to ensure respect for linguistic equality before the courts for all Canadians, especially those who live in minority francophone communities.

This is my colleague's third attempt since 2008 to get this bill passed. Let us not forget that, four years ago, this same bill, known then as C-232, passed third reading. Despite the opposition of all Conservative members, including francophone Conservative members, my colleague managed to get Bill C-232 passed in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the bill was blocked in the Senate by Conservative senators, some of whom were francophone, as incredible as that might seem.

The Senate and unelected senators blocked Bill C-232 until the March 2011 election was called. The bill would have protected the interests of Canada's linguistic minorities, but they let it die on the order paper. That is both shameful and an insult to democracy.

Fortunately, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst will continue to work tirelessly to protect the rights of linguistic minorities. I can guarantee that he has the support of all NDP MPs and that, together, we will continue to fight to ensure respect for our two official languages from coast to coast.

The NDP is not alone in this fight. My colleague's bill has been praised and supported by many non-partisan stakeholders. For instance, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has said several times that he believes that Supreme Court judges should be bilingual; he also supported Bill C-232 in the previous Parliament.

According to the commissioner, any litigant appearing before the Supreme Court should have the right to be heard and understood by all the judges in either official language without the aid of an interpreter. The Barreau du Québec, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, and a number of law professors also support the NDP's position on having bilingual Supreme Court judges.

However, the Conservative government has used every possible obstructive measure to undermine the NDP's efforts to have this bill passed, while claiming that they are looking after the language rights of French-language minority Canadians.

The simple fact that an issue of paramount importance like equality before the law is being raised in a private member's bill instead of in a government bill is an indication of how little importance the Conservative government attaches to the language rights of francophones.

In addition to appointing a unilingual anglophone Auditor General to Parliament, this government appointed two unilingual anglophone judges to the Supreme Court, Justice Rothstein and Justice Moldaver. In fact, there is a pool of highly qualified and fully bilingual judges, but the Conservative government pays no heed to that for partisan reasons.

The Conservatives seem to be forgetting that Canada was founded as a result of the hard work of two linguistic and cultural groups. Ignoring the right of francophones to have access to justice in their own language is betraying one of Canada's founding principles that is based on co-operation between the two linguistic communities.

Bilingualism and Canada go hand in hand, just like the traditions of British common law and French civil law go hand in hand. Denying the full equality of French in our courts is ignoring a fundamental principle of our nation. Our country's highest court must reflect Canada's bilingualism.

In addition to these matters of principle, there are also technical considerations with respect to the limitations of translation, which also point to the importance of having bilingual Supreme Court judges.

Surely it goes without saying that there are numerous nuances and subtleties in every language that can and often do get lost in translation. This is of crucial importance when matters of law and justice are concerned, especially at the Supreme Court level, the final court of appeal for all Canadians.

One significant problem lies in what Professor Ruth King, a member of the Department of Languages, Literatures and Linguistics at York University, refers to as code switches. Professor King defines code switches as sentences that use verbs to communicate opinions or belief. Statements such as “I think”, “I guess”, or “I believe” all work to underscore the speaker's stance or truth of the proposition and in some cases to indicate a degree of uncertainty.

King argues that terms such as these can be translated in French using words that can either enhance or diminish the degree to which the proposition is true. Based on her research, one can conclude that translators who translate between the French and English languages are likely to face problems in accurately conveying the meaning of a statement, not because those translators are bad at their job but because there are simply too many nuances and subtleties in both of our official languages to rely solely on translation when it comes to legal matters. Therefore, Canadians who have to rely on translation to make their case for justice are at an automatic disadvantage. The same applies to many other situations.

For example, if a test written in French is given to one who only speaks English, it is unlikely that person would be able to perform to the best of his or her ability, as relying on a translator would stand as an impediment. In 1998, Professor R.K. Hambleton performed a number of studies on the reliability and validity of tests administered across language and cultures. His research concluded that language did, in fact, play a significant factor in one's ability to perform well on a test. Hambleton suggests that despite the use of translators, when one is tested in a language that is not his or her own, the results are not an accurate representation of the person's knowledge.

Hambleton concludes that it is imperative for tests to be administered in one's native language in order to gain truly reflective results. Much like taking a test, trials rely on the interpretation of questions, by which judgments are based on one's response. If a question is answered incorrectly due to its interpretation, this poses a fundamental risk to the reliability and validity of a verdict. Simply requiring all judges to be fluent in both English and French can reduce such problems. By removing the language barrier, all Canadians, both English and French, will receive equal opportunities to a fair and reliable trial.

Therefore, the inherent limitations of translation requires judges to be able to communicate in both English and French in order to avoid any misinterpretations of vital information. Given the responsibilities and integrity of the Supreme Court of Canada, it is absolutely essential that any room for error be eliminated. If judges are required to speak both English and French as it is being proposed in this bill, the chance for misinterpretation might not be eliminated, but it would certainly be greatly reduced and go toward improving our trial process in the Supreme Court.

It is the responsibility of the House to ensure that the Supreme Court of Canada provides sound and equal treatment to all citizens of Canada. What is more, it is inexcusable to risk a Superior Court that cannot discern testimony with utmost accuracy and precision and fails to offer the optimal conditions for all those who seek justice.

In closing, I ask my colleagues from all political parties to rise above polarizing partisan divisions and make good use of this opportunity to restore the faith and respect Canadians once had for this great Parliament. As this House did with Bill C-419, let us work together to support this motion that seeks to uphold two of our most cherished, fundamental constitutional rights: equality before the law and equality of our two official languages.

I call on all members of the House, especially my Conservative colleagues across the way, to vote in favour of this motion and send the right message to all Canadians that we have respect for both official languages groups, that we have respect for those who are in minority situations to be understood in the highest court of law. I ask them to work with us to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for further deliberation.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

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.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I admit that the first question that came to mind when preparing this speech was the following: should I be pleased or disheartened by the prospect of speaking to a bill that, for the third time, is attempting to introduce common sense? We agree that the bill introduced by my colleague for Acadie—Bathurst is based on common sense.

At a time when politicians sometimes have a bad reputation for being opportunists, making promises that they do not keep and changing their tune depending on which way the wind is blowing, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst is just what is needed to counter these hasty judgments or preconceptions. He is feisty and persistent, and he is not the sort of person to give up on his ideas when difficulties arise. Therefore, I wish to congratulate him for his efforts on behalf of the people he represents, the people of Acadie—Bathurst and especially, today, for his long fight for our country's two official languages and recognition of bilingualism in the federal government and Canada's major institutions. I am not referring to recognition just on paper, but in actual practice.

My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst has been a source of inspiration ever since I arrived in the House. When I was first assigned to be a member, with him, on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, he showed me everything that remains to be done in order to ensure that the spirit of the Official Languages Act becomes part of Canadians' reality. It is because of my colleague's efforts and his example of perseverance, that I have finally chosen to say that I am honoured to rise today to defend, with all the courage of my convictions, his bill, Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages).

His bill would change the Supreme Court and create a new requirement for the appointment of Supreme Court justices. It is a very simple requirement, if it is one at all: to be able to listen to and understand anyone who appears before the Supreme Court, in the language of their choice, whether English or French, without the assistance of an interpreter.

As I just mentioned, this is my colleague's third attempt at seeing this initiative through. This legislative measure was introduced for the first time in June 2008 and the same bill was introduced in November 2008. Those who have been here for a while will probably remember that it was then Bill C-232, which was passed by the House of Commons. I want to emphasize the fact that it was passed by the House of Commons. Today, here we go again. Something is not right.

The bill was passed on March 31, 2010, but the Conservative senators used their majority in the Senate to block it until the election was called in March 2011. This is another example of unelected people blocking a bill that was passed by elected parliamentarians in the House of Commons. I think this needs no further comment.

Let us leave the Senate aside for now and come back to the essence of the bill. Why is it so essential for a judge to understand both official languages? There are many reasons, but I will focus mainly on the two that I consider to be the most important.

The first is equal justice. The Supreme Court, as we all know, is the highest court in the land and its nine justices are sometimes called to sit for the same case. It is rather unthinkable that some of them might not have exactly the same understanding of the arguments being made as the others who listen to and understand both official languages. The witnesses and other participants can speak in the language of their choice. That is a recognized and properly applied right. There are no problems there.

However, it is important that the judges understand the nuances of the testimonies. In law, often everything lies in the nuances. Simultaneous interpretation has its limits. We realize that every day in the House of Commons. The House interpreters do a tremendous job, but it is never as good as being able to listen to each speaker in their own language and understand all the subtleties.

Judges being bilingual, therefore, helps ensure that francophones and anglophones have equal access to justice. It gives them the assurance, not only that they will be heard, but above all, that they will be understood. When a case is in its final stage in the legal process, the assurance of that right should be guaranteed.

The second reason rests on the duality of our body of law in Canada. In Canada, all legislation exists in both official languages. Let us understand each other clearly. No statute adopted by this Parliament is first written in one language and then translated into the second. Statutes are drafted in both official languages at the same time, with the subtlety of each language's vocabulary and with neither language taking precedence over the other. If we have therefore considered it to be right and proper to have that kind of legislation in Parliament, those called upon to sit in judgment in support of that process must have the same ability.

Why are we proposing this bill? The bill introduced by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is not before us in order to make the task of a Supreme Court judge even more complex. At the outset, I understand the traditional objection that we have heard each time this bill has been debated in the House. The question is always: will we be depriving ourselves of an eminently competent judge, who happens to have the disadvantage of being unilingual, given that simultaneous interpretation has all the limitations I mentioned just now?

My answer is very simple: yes. We should have to deprive ourselves of the services of a unilingual judge. To my recollection, we have never witnessed the appointment of a unilingual francophone judge. Please understand me. I am not saying that francophones have been treated differently. However, we have to recognize that, for a francophone, a knowledge of English is an essential part of legal training. It is precisely this fact that anglophones who aspire to a seat on the highest court in the land have to recognize. In Canada, French is an essential skill to qualify for that position. Period.

A prime minister who does not speak Canada's two official languages? Unthinkable. Well then, what about a Supreme Court judge? Should that not be just as important? Every time this bill comes up for discussion, it receives plenty of support across Canada. For example, the Barreau du Québec has repeatedly expressed its support for the bilingual Supreme Court judges bill. Here is what it says:

Bilingualism [it says] 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.

Those words are strong, clear and precise. That says it all. Some might say that, obviously, Quebec, with its francophone majority, would want this. However, the same goes for other groups all over Quebec. For example, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne also supports this bill just as categorically:

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...

It is really the notion of being understood that is at the heart of my colleague's bill.

Lastly, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has said several times that he believes that Supreme Court judges should be bilingual.

What is the NDP doing when it comes to official languages? Not only is the bill sponsored by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst an eloquent demonstration of the NDP's defence of the French fact, but we could also mention Bill C-315, which I had the pleasure of sponsoring and which deals with French in workplaces under federal jurisdiction, or that other bill that passed in the House and that now requires officers of Parliament to be bilingual before being appointed to the position.

In closing, I would say that, based on all the evidence, it is quite clear that the NDP is more than just the official opposition; it is also a party that makes proposals. We are a party full of proposals that, as I said in the beginning, make a lot of sense and speak not only to the spirit but also to the letter of the Official Languages Act.

The Supreme Court exists to serve Canadians, whether their first official language is French or English.

Unfortunately, I have to end it there, although I have so much more to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand before my hon. colleagues tonight to close the second hour of debate on Bill C-208, my bill that aims to make English-French bilingualism a new requirement for judges appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I also want to thank my NDP colleagues who have spoken tonight and in the first hour and who support my bill. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville and the Liberals who supported my bill in 2008, in 2010 and again today.

Everyone can see that the Conservatives are the only ones saying no.

This is my third attempt to get this bill through, and I hope that all my colleagues on the other side of the House will vote in favour of the bilingualism requirement for Supreme Court judges when we vote on May 7.

In recent weeks, I have had the opportunity to visit a few universities and a few communities to talk about Bill C-208. I went to Sudbury and had the opportunity to present my bill to students at Laurentian University. I also presented my bill to students in the faculty of law at the Université de Moncton and law students at the University of Ottawa.

People in my riding support my bill enthusiastically. Everywhere I went, people said that the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges was important for the equality of both official languages and equality in the access to justice.

Let me now tell the House about the support I have received from various stakeholders in the fields of official languages and justice.

In his letter of support for Bill C-208, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, said:

...since 2008, I supported the principle that all Supreme Court justices should be bilingual, and that is still my opinion. I believe, out of respect for all Canadians, that it is a matter of ensuring that they are all served by judges of the highest distinction and greatest ability, who can hear and understand a case in either official language

The Barreau du Québec also supported my bill and said that:

[It] has always believed that functional bilingualism should be among a Supreme Court judge's required skills in order to ensure equal access to justice...

The Quebec Community Groups Network also supports this important bill. Its letter of support for Bill C-208, it stated that the QCGN supports the requirement that Supreme Court Justices be capable of executing their responsibilities in both official languages without the aid of an interpreter on the same basis. In addition, the letter stated that the QCGN believes that Bill C-208 strengthens the principle of the rule of law upon which our society is based.

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or the FCFA, and its members have also shown their support for Bill C-208. In its letter of support, the FCFA indicated:

...we find it completely unacceptable that, in this day and age, French-speaking Canadians still cannot be heard and understood by all of the judges who sit on the highest court in our country without the assistance of an interpreter.

I would like to thank all the people, groups and associations who shared with me their support for the important issue of the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges.

I would like to remind hon. members of the importance of my bill. This is a matter of access to justice. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, and it is very important for its judges to be able to understand both official languages without the help of an interpreter.

Second, having bilingual Supreme Court judges would ensure the equality of both the official languages. We have to remember that the Supreme Court has recognized the equality of French and English.

In conclusion, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favour of my Bill C-208.

We must protect the equality of our two official languages and equal access to justice. In particular, I am calling on the Conservative members from Quebec and the members who have francophone communities in their ridings, such as the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, and the member for Saint Boniface, who is the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, to ask their Conservative colleagues to support my bill, which seeks to ensure that Supreme Court judges are bilingual. It is a matter of justice and equality.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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 of the motion 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:

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 7, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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