Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2016

Opposition motion—Appointments to the Supreme Court

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the government has taken the issues of indigenous peoples in this country extremely seriously. We have met and consulted with first nations right across the country and put record investments of $5 billion into the education of people who need it. With regard to the Minister of Justice, she works closely with the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. They will do the right things for Canada's first nation people. On this side of the House we are committed to getting it right for first nations and we will do exactly that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Post-secondary Education; the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, Ethics; and the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

I have the privilege to rise today to speak on this day when thousand of Canadians, especially Atlantic Canadians, are wondering what to make of this Prime Minister's plans to break with the tradition set out in the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Supreme Court Act, both of which govern the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

As we know, one thing sets Canada apart from the rest of the Commonwealth. Like the other 52 countries, we practice common law, a legal principle built essentially on case law, but we also have the Civil Code of Quebec, a legacy of our French tradition.

These two justice systems set Canada apart on a number of levels. Internationally, Canada stands out for the quality of its legal experts in various fields of international law, including maritime law. That is why the Supreme Court Act provides that Quebec have at least three seats at the Supreme Court.

Having said that, I would like to point out that the Université de Moncton, in Atlantic Canada, is the only Canadian university where the entire common law degree program is taught in French. That is quite something. We must recognize and respect this unique expertise in today's debate because Atlantic Canada's excellent resources and jurists have made Canada's justice system an international model that is envied by all.

Under the Supreme Court Act, at least three of the Supreme Court justices must be from Quebec; by convention, three justices are from Ontario, two are from the west, and one is from the Atlantic provinces.

Given that the Liberal members are supposed to ensure that we comply with the legislative framework for the Supreme Court, it is surprising and even worrisome to see that, to date, those members who should proudly and dutifully look after the interests of the people of the Atlantic provinces have been silent; the people of these provinces will remember their silence.

Since coming to power, this government has spouted rhetoric and claimed that it is transparent. However, I believe that it has a very elastic conscience when it comes to making decisions and being rigorous about upholding the law. The law, ethics, fairness, responsibility and, above all, moderation, are no longer the predominant values of this government.

The process for appointing justices to the Supreme Court is very rigorous. I had the privilege of participating in it in the past. The process must not only comply with the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Supreme Court Act, but it must also be non-partisan and highly confidential. The panel must give the Prime Minister a short list of candidates who are most qualified to be a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Obviously, it would be better if there were a lot of candidates from the Atlantic region in the next process. For the reasons I gave earlier, I believe that Atlantic Canada can give the Supreme Court a top-notch bilingual judge, who will not only be proficient in both official languages, but will also understand the nuances of expression and interpretations of common law in French.

This session of Parliament has just begun and we are already seeing that this government has not made any significant decisions since it took office almost a year ago. Even worse, this government is behaving like the grasshopper and having fun all over Canada and elsewhere in the world at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

There have been many spending scandals: exorbitant relocation expenses of $200,000 for the chief of staff and the Prime Minister's best friend, limousine and room rentals for the work of certain ministers at prices that are just as exorbitant, and of course, the billions of dollars in debt that this government is unfortunately going to leave to future generations.

In passing, the Liberals are spending money that does not belong to them and one day it is going to run out.

Does anyone really believe them when they say they are non-partisan and transparent?

What if MPs from the Atlantic provinces hold little sway with their government, or not as much as they might have expected? What if the Prime Minister defies the law and fails in his duty to appoint a justice from the Atlantic provinces? How much will Canadian taxpayers be on the hook for if the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land, ends up having to rule on what the Liberal government is about to do? What a disgrace.

This government does whatever it pleases. That is a perversion of our democracy and our legislative system. We urge the Liberal government to show some respect, to continue selecting justices from among the most talented and experienced people on the benches of Canadian courts, and to fill vacancies in the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, in keeping with the two laws I mentioned that govern the process, the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Supreme Court Act.

I am sure that, right now, there are many people who, like the members on this side of the House, are watching the Liberal government's every move. We hope that the Liberals will show some respect for the laws that ensure order and stability in Canada, not to mention for the 32 Liberal members from the Atlantic provinces, so as to maintain public confidence in an institution as important as the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a great deal of the debate. One thing that really needs to be highlighted is the fact that with the new Prime Minister and government, we have given a very strong vote of confidence in the Supreme Court of Canada and the process. The process is something in which I believe Canadians want to see, one that is fair, transparent, and more accountable. We committed this to Canadians in the last election. In fact, we are materializing on that commitment.

Would the member not, at the very least, acknowledge individuals such as Kim Campbell, the former Progressive Conservative prime minister of Canada, who chairs the committee that reviews the applications? Does the member not believe that she, among the other committee members, are doing a fine job in ensuring that Canada gets the best in terms of the Supreme Court of Canada?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I think that the committee has a huge responsibility. I want to congratulate all the members of that committee. They must show a great deal of discretion in their work and do everything in the strictest confidentiality, to ensure that the candidates proposed are properly assessed and characterized.

From what I understood of the process from the minister's explanation this morning, the committee must provide the Prime Minister with a short list. We were not told whether that means three names or four names, but from that list, the Prime Minister must eventually select a new Supreme Court justice. I hope the committee members will be able to do a good job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to hear my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière speak. Like new wine in an old bottle, it seems to me that we are hearing a new Conservative voice—or voices.

In the case of many past appointments, whether they were appointments of officers of Parliament or judicial appointments, we were often told that the best people for the job had been chosen, despite the fact that they were unilingual anglophones, and that they would learn French as soon as possible.

Do I understand what I am hearing today correctly, namely that the next justice appointment should be based on what is known in mathematics as the intersection? The individual selected will need to have the professional skills required, which goes without saying, as well as be truly bilingual, not just functionally bilingual, in my view, and be able to fulfill regional representation requirements and Canadian diversity requirements.

Are we looking for someone whose resumé checks all four boxes?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for that interesting question.

Yes, I believe that the next Supreme Court justice should come from Atlantic Canada. It is so obvious, especially considering that Atlantic Canada has its own unique characteristics and potential candidates that would enrich the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is not trivial.

In Atlantic Canada a study program in common law, an English system, is offered in French. This is unique in North America. The courses are taught by the best professors in the world. In fact, a professor from France comes every year to teach a part of the program that is not offered by any professors in Canada. This is quite valuable and shows that Canadian legal experts are among the best in the world in a number of areas.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière for his remarks. I am proud to sit in the House with him. I have known him for years, since I was a staffer for another member here in the House today, the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

I have been listening to debate since this morning. I listened to the minister and interventions of all members of the House. The member for Charlottetown had interesting points to make. I especially appreciated the interventions from the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, who intervened as a former law clerk and gave his impressions of what the motion meant. The member who is a proud Acadian from Nova Scotia also made contributions.

I look at the wording of the motion and specifically what it means to vote for the motion. Part of the motion says that the government should respect the custom of regional representation when making appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.

When we vote in the House, our vote is important. I travel through my riding and I go to different schools. I tell students about how we vote, why we vote, and how it is recorded. I also speak to men's and women's groups at different churches. I tell them there is no such thing as a free vote, that every vote has consequences.

John Pepall, a journalist and an associate professor has written a great book against reform on this, saying that there is no such thing as a free vote, that every vote has a consequence, and that something comes out of it. If members of the government are to vote for this motion, especially the 32 members from Atlantic Canada, they have to ensure that the person who is appointed to the Supreme Court to fill Justice Cromwell's position is from Atlantic Canada. If they are to vote for respecting the custom, they have to therefore assure themselves that an Atlantic Canadian will fill the seat. By the very definition, they are agreeing with the custom by voting for the motion. They cannot have it both ways.

They cannot quibble about the definition between custom and convention. Many law associations and organizations have referred to this matter as a convention. At which point it becomes the difference between the two is a matter of legal debate, which is why the government could have gone about this in a totally different way. It could have tabled a government bill and said that this is how Supreme Court justices would be appointed, that there would a series of criteria to be used, and then decide that regional representation would not be as important. It would be one criteria among many instead of the main criteria with all these other ones we would seek to fulfill as well.

The government has not done that. What it has done instead is a semi-transparent process, kind of a secret process. It will go to the Prime Minister. He will make the decision in the end and then submit his recommendation to the Governor General, who will then obviously make the decision based on what the Prime Minister tells him to do.

Regional representation is just part of the deal when Canada was made. Most of our institutions in this place identify with regions of our country. As a proud Franco-Albertan, it is important to respect those institutions, where Parliament was formed and how Confederation was formed. Therefore, respecting the custom means that the vote here will mean something. It has to mean something. It is not free; it has consequences.

The Liberals could say that on the basis of diversity, they will try to fulfill a series of criteria. They have laid out some of the criteria they would like to fulfill. However, they could also choose someone who, at the end of the day, fulfills as many of these criteria but who is from Atlantic Canada. Why not appoint a Newfoundlander to the court? There has never been a justice from Newfoundland. It is up to the government to find a person with sufficient legal experience, with a great legal mind who could fulfill the criteria of the courts.

The Prime Minister's new process does not guarantee that at least one justice will be on the court. There have been two exceptions to the custom, and it is true, but two exceptions do not prove the rule when there have been so many justices appointed to the court. If at least one hails from Atlantic Canada, then it would have fulfilled the requirements of the custom, and the custom eventually becomes a convention.

If the Prime Minister were to appoint a replacement for Justice Cromwell from outside Atlantic Canada, it would leave the court without Atlantic Canadian representation, and who knows for how long. When the next justice comes up for retirement, the government may or may not. It is unclear. If this were a case of Ontario losing a member for maybe one, two, or three years, perhaps a case could be made for it. However, Atlantic Canada only has one justice on the court. I am sure if it were an Alberta or western justice stepping down, we Albertans would be saying, as much as possible, that someone from our home province should be appointed, or another westerner to fill that spot.

The only area that has a legal requirement for a certain number of justices on the court is Quebec, as of now, for now, because one has to be a member of the Barreau du Québec to be appointed.

Having listened to all the debate so far, I want to continue something I have been doing in this House since the beginning. I have a Yiddish proverb that I want to share with this House: if you repeat often enough that you're right, you will discover you're wrong.

The Liberals have been repeating this mantra that they will respect diversity, they will vote for this motion, they will respect the custom, but they will not guarantee that an Atlantic Canadian will actually be appointed to the court.

If they are going to vote for the motion, saying they respect the custom, but they are not going to guarantee that they will respect it and actually appoint someone from Atlantic Canada, then why are they voting for the motion? They should vote against it. Obviously, the custom does not matter, in this particular situation. They are free to do that. That is a choice the government is making. That is perfectly all right. We will disagree on it. We will vote on opposite sides. They, surprisingly, have more members than we do, so I assume that the motion would then fail, but they have that choice. They can make that choice by choosing not to. They want to have it both ways. They want to say one thing and do something else completely different afterward.

As long as I have lived in Canada, since my family came here in 1985, that has been pretty typical of most Liberal governments: say one thing, promise one thing, do something completely different. However, to do it on the floor of the House, to vote one way with absolutely no intentions of fulfilling or going through with it, to pretend that they respect the custom and do something else different, that reaches a totally new level. That is not something I have seen.

The Cape Breton Post had an editorial that I thought was fantastic. The header says, “We don't lack diversity”, and it goes on to say, “[the Prime Minister] has no excuse for excluding Atlantic Canadians from Supreme Court of Canada appointments”.

It goes pretty far. It says they are being excluded. I am not going that far. I am not saying they are being excluded. However, I am saying that the position, the posting, belongs to an Atlantic Canadian, to respect the institution of Parliament, to respect the traditions and the history, where we came from, where this country came from.

If regionalism is no longer a valid goal to meet the diversity needs, the government should say that. Again, it could propose a piece of legislation where it says that regionalism is now one criterion among many to be considered for a government appointment.

Then, what type of diversity requirements do we want to be met, and how are we going to order them or prioritize them? Are we going to have 30 different things we want, or are there going to be three, four, five, or six? Which ones are the most important ones?

Those are decisions the government has to make, but we can critique them.

Over time, if successive replacements to the court take on a certain style, they become conventions—or they will, first, actually become customs and then, later, conventions, depending upon how long they continue.

The government could have moved, again, as I mentioned before, a government bill on this. It could have done that. It has had a year to move legislation on it. It has known the retirement was coming. It is not a surprise. It is not as if this came out of the blue. So, it could have moved a government bill to propose how our appointments will proceed. It could have done it at that point.

Some members have referred to the Nadon decision. It came down a certain way. Nadon was disqualified from sitting on the Supreme Court, but the court said that Parliament does not have a unilateral right to change the composition of the court. Today, it is the executive making that decision, which is equally wrong. If Parliament cannot make that choice, then neither can the executive. It should be a constitutional amendment, therefore.

I really think that preserving the seat for Atlantic Canada is, again, a recognition of where Canada has been and where we are going: to continue respecting that regional representation.

The Liberals are promoting a concept of diversity that seems to exclude the regions. It appears that the regions are no longer important. As Conservatives, we are keen on all of our country's parliamentary conventions and traditions. The Supreme Court of Canada is an institution that, like Parliament, should reflect regional diversity to reflect our country. That is the purpose of the convention, and I believe that the integrity and constitutional validity of the Supreme Court will be compromised if a candidate from Atlantic Canada is not selected.

I will just finish with a quote from Ray Wagner, in French. He says:

It raises questions of regionalism, which are very important to Atlantic Canadians and their participation in Confederation. The problem is that we will get swallowed up by larger population areas that get appointments—and we get forgotten and somewhat marginalized.

This is the spokesperson for these trial lawyers from Atlantic Canada who are now pursuing a court case.

Therefore, I believe that if the Liberals are going to be true to themselves, they should actually vote against this motion, because they obviously do not believe in this custom.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, with the last comment from the member for Calgary Shepard, I am a little confused. I would have thought that the objective of his speech would be to solicit support for his motion. Now he is encouraging us to vote against it. However, we fully intend to support the motion.

One of the other things he said was that, while we respect the custom of regional representation, we have no intention of fulfilling it. He must have had some conversation with the Prime Minister of which I am unaware. At no time that I know of has the Prime Minister ever said that he has no intention of carrying out a full measure of respect for the custom of regional representation.

I do agree with one thing the member said. He specifically said that there is only one situation where there is a legal requirement and that is in Quebec.

However, the question I have for the member is on his reference to a secret process. I would invite him to offer comment on the role that parliamentarians have in the process of the nomination of a Supreme Court judge, and to compare the role that parliamentarians are being assigned in this process to the one they had in the last one.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for me, it really comes down to the cost of the regionalism and the role of Parliamentarians in appointing or playing a role in who becomes the head of the Supreme Court or who joins the Supreme Court. We can all make recommendations. It is as simple as writing a letter and sending it to the Prime Minister.

Again, I am soliciting members to vote their conscience and vote the way they are actually intending to act, because we are all responsible for our voting record here. It is what we are going to take back to our constituencies and explain to our constituents, the residents and voters of our riding.

I will not vote for things if I cannot explain myself to my constituents why I did it. I also do not intend to vote for something and do something completely different afterwards. If I believe in this custom, which I do, I will vote for the motion.

What I am asking the member and his government to do is to stay true to themselves. If they intend to follow through with the custom, then they should vote for it and then say so publicly and commit to appointing an Atlantic Canadian.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with attention to the speech of the member for Calgary Shepard. I appreciate the contradiction that he has identified between the government members saying on the one hand that they respect the custom, but when pressed, not being willing to guarantee that they will in fact ensure that Atlantic Canada has a seat on the Supreme Court.

One of the reasons for this glaring silence seems to be that all of the members representing Atlantic Canada come from the governing party. I will not speak for other parties, but I am sure that, if we had a New Democrat representing a riding in Atlantic Canada, that member would be standing up and demanding that there be a judge from Atlantic Canada on the Supreme Court. However, through the perversity of the first past the post system, even though the Liberals did not get 100% of the vote in Atlantic Canada, they got 100% of the seats.

I wonder if the member would agree that this very debate is one of the reasons why we need proportional representation in Canada.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, but I do not know how pertinent it is to the matter at hand. Maybe we should start a series of consultations to make the government feel more comfortable and then table something for the Liberals to consider. It could be called consultocracy.

I have great respect for Parliament, and our system of electing members of Parliament has worked for us for many years. Mostly, it has been Liberal governments that have been elected under the single member plurality system, but even our colonial Parliament had the same one. However, that is not the matter before us here. It is really the question of whether the Liberals will stick to the custom and actually appoint an Atlantic Canadian.

I believe they should, because I would like to see this custom become an actual convention. I would like to really avoid this matter going before the Supreme Court for consideration, and it then ruling against the government after it has appointed a judge who may not be from Atlantic Canada. I think that would call the entire process into question. Again, it would be shameful if it led to the Supreme Court having to decide who may or may not sit on the court, once again.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the appointment of Supreme Court justices, an issue of such importance that I even introduced a bill calling for these justices to be bilingual. I will have the opportunity to talk about that in my speech.

The motion calls on the government to take into account regional differences when appointing judges to the Supreme Court and to respect the custom of regional representation. I think that everyone in the House of Commons agrees with that, myself included.

The announcement that the Prime Minister of Canada made this summer caused much disappointment. Of course, we are happy that a committee has been set up to analyze judges' legal expertise and to ensure that they are bilingual and that they fully understand both official languages. Everyone was very pleased and the Prime Minister's announcement was met with praise on all sides.

However, my leader, the leader of the NDP, went to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to ask the minister what it means to be a bilingual judge. Does it mean that the judge can speak both official languages? The Minister of Justice vaguely answered that she did not know exactly what it means and that it may mean being able to understand but not necessarily speak both languages. That is very disappointing, and it is not at all the bilingualism that we expect of a Supreme Court justice.

We are very concerned about the Minister of Justice's response. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice will address this situation, because it is unacceptable. We must consider what the Commissioner of Official Languages asked for. He asked that justices have the language skills required not only to understand French and English and to speak these languages, but also to understand the legal terminology every Supreme Court judge should master.

Like the Conservatives, we believe that customary regional representation must be maintained, and that is why we are talking about the Atlantic provinces now. We also believe that judges must be bilingual and that there should be legislation to that effect. I will talk about that shortly. Most importantly, this government must not make the same mistakes the Conservatives made.

Unfortunately, two unilingual anglophone justices were appointed. Other blunders included appointing a unilingual anglophone officer of Parliament. The Liberals made similar mistakes, such as appointing a unilingual anglophone House leader and a unilingual anglophone Speaker of the Senate. The Liberals have had their share of problems and have not always made the right choices.

That is why I want to talk about my bill, Bill C-203, which would amend the Supreme Court Act and introduce a new requirement for judges appointed to the Supreme Court to understand both official languages in accordance with the language skills criteria defined by the Commissioner of Official Languages.

This is extremely important because, when it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices, regional representation is certainly a factor, but we must not forget that, under the Official Languages Act, both languages have equal status. Neither is superior to the other; both are equal.

In our courts, particularly in the highest court in the land, it is to be expected that both official languages should be equal, but that cannot happen if the judges are not bilingual.

We have heard stories, and I am going to share one with you. This really happened, and it is disturbing.

A few years ago, a justice began making his argument in French before the other justices present. The presiding Supreme Court justice suddenly asked him if he could slow down because the interpreters could not keep up. I should point out that one has a limited amount of time to present one's argument. If justices cannot present their arguments at a normal, regular pace, or if they have to slow down, of course this can be problematic.

The interpreters do a wonderful job. I want to commend their work, because I know we also have interpreters working in the House of Commons. We also did a study on the Translation Bureau, and I want to emphasize that the bureau as a whole is doing an excellent job, much like our interpreters. However, as the name states, there can at times be some interpretation of what is said. They do the best they can to interpret the message properly, but it cannot be a word-for-word translation of every point in every sentence. In any case, that would not make sense. Interpretation is a magnificent art, but of course it is the art of interpreting the message.

When faced with something as important as any matter before the Supreme Court of Canada, that is, something of such gravity and critical importance to the entire country, there is no room for even the smallest mistake or tiniest difference between what is said and how it is understood. That is why it is extremely important that all justices understand both official languages.

I want to point out that I introduced Bill C-203 to amend the legislation on appointing judges in order to ensure that they are bilingual. Before that, the NDP did a lot of work on this. My dear colleague, Yvon Godin, is well known by those who have been in the House for many years. He fought for years to ensure that the judges appointed were bilingual. He introduced a bill in June 2008. He started again in November 2008, and in 2010, he introduced the very well constructed Bill C-232. It was more or less the same bill that I introduced. This bill was agreed to by a majority of the members of the House of Commons because the Liberals voted in favour of it. It ended up in the Senate, but unfortunately, the Conservative senators dragged out the process until the House adjourned and elections were called. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper.

The House did pass the bill, however. The elected members passed the bill. The Liberals are now in power and they are looking for any possible excuse not to pass this bill because it may be unconstitutional.

Why do the Liberals and my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, not refer the bill to the Supreme Court for an opinion? Is this bill constitutional or not? Let us ask the Supreme Court for an opinion.

When we asked the experts whether the bill was unconstitutional, they all said they could not say. We have to ask the Supreme Court for an opinion.

We know that, in the past, the Conservatives unfortunately did not always appoint bilingual judges. Therefore, if we want to ensure that we continue to have bilingual Supreme Court justices, we definitely must pass a bill. That is why this bill must be passed. I hope that the Liberals will take this bill seriously and pass it to ensure that regional representation will finally be mandated, and also to ensure that both official languages are on an equal footing. They must be equal, and one cannot be held above the other. Canadians, regardless of whether they speak French or English in Canada, must be treated equally before the law, especially since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond for his speech. I will be talking about the same thing. He spoke about bilingualism and the private member's bill that he introduced. However, he knows very well that the policy announced by the Prime Minister will ensure that bilingual judges will be appointed from now on. We adopted a definition of functional bilingualism.

Requiring bilingualism is not really a big leap because the Prime Minister has already done that. Is it really necessary to pass a bill when we now have a policy that will guarantee that bilingual judges are appointed?

Why should we ask the Supreme Court to rule on whether this is constitutional when the result will be the same? As we know, 13 of the last 15 judges were bilingual to some degree. Therefore, it is not really a great leap.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for his question.

Unfortunately, it seems that the parliamentary secretary thinks that he will be in power forever. However, the Liberal government will not be in office forever and policies change. We want something more lasting, and a bill provides an additional safeguard.

When the NDP introduced the bill on bilingual officers of the House through my colleague Alexandrine Latendresse, we were all happy to support it. We passed that bill to ensure that officers of the House would be bilingual.

Since the Supreme Court is a last recourse for Canadians, we need to ensure that its judges are bilingual. The Quebec minister responsible for Canadian relations, Jean-Marc Fournier, is calling for the appointment of bilingual judges to be enshrined in law, as is the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the Barreau du Québec, and lawyers from New Brunswick and other parts of Atlantic Canada.

Yes, we need to put this in a bill because the Liberals will not always be in power. People need to properly understand both official languages, and the Liberals' definition of bilingualism is not quite adequate.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I mentioned that all of the Atlantic MPs were Liberals and that none of them were prepared to say that we should guarantee that region a seat in the Supreme Court. Perhaps that is because 100% of the members for that region are Liberal, even though they did not receive 100% of the vote. Perhaps we would be hearing something different from the Atlantic members if we had a different voting system.

Does the member for Drummond think that the debate would be different and that the Atlantic provinces would have different representation if we adopted a better voting system?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his very interesting and informed analysis. I commend the Liberal government for agreeing to change the composition of the special committee on electoral reform to make it proportional to the number of votes cast. I tip my hat to the government because this shows great openness in the context of an extremely important democratic reform initiative.

As my colleague said, the main problem with the current system is that the votes do not count because there is no proportionality. This prevents us from having the most informed debate possible.

The consultations I held this summer in my riding indicated that people want our system to have some element of proportionality. We will see the results of this tour on democratic reform. I hope that the Liberal government will have the courage to put a system in place that addresses people's concerns.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, I must inform her that she will have roughly five minutes before her speech is interrupted at 5:15 p.m.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to sum up what I have to say in five minutes.

Let us start with some history. The Supreme Court was created in 1875. It has been the final court of appeal for criminal cases in Canada since 1933, and for civil cases since 1949. The Supreme Court consists of eight puisne judges and a chief justice, who shall hold office during good behaviour until the age of 75. Of these nine judges, three shall be from Quebec, to ensure expertise in civil law, and tradition has it that, of the remaining six judges, three come from Ontario, two come from the western provinces and one comes from the Atlantic provinces.

The motion flows from this problem, in other words, that this is a tradition, not a requirement. As we saw in the past under Stephen Harper, the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon did not comply with the rules. In that case, there was a formal obligation under the law, because the three justices from Quebec must have been members of the Barreau du Québec for at least 10 years, which was not the case for Justice Nadon. That was a legal, constitutional obligation, but it was not respected at the time of his appointment. There are precedents here, and in this case, it was a requirement.

What we are talking about now arises from tradition and custom, not obligation, so it is understandable that people would be concerned. I think we need to deal with Supreme Court appointments once and for all to ensure that what the vast majority of the population wants is no longer a custom but an obligation. If we deal with this now, it will not come up every time there is a new government and every time there is a new appointment, because that just gets tiresome.

I also want to talk about the bill my colleague from Drummond introduced because another important factor for me when it comes to Supreme Court appointments is bilingualism. I think the current definition of bilingualism is sloppy: they need to understand French, but they do not necessarily need to speak it. That makes no sense to me. There are tests in both languages that can tell us if people know the other language.

For example, I once did some research into working abroad in the U.K. I had to take an English test and get a minimum score on it to work there. We can do the same thing here. There are tools to evaluate whether people are truly bilingual. Saying someone just has to understand French but does not need to speak it is not good enough. To me, that is ridiculous. I also want to point out that, to be appointed to the Supreme Court, a candidate must satisfy a number of conditions, including having been a member of a provincial bar association for at least 10 years.

In other words, that person has time to prepare. People are not being appointed to the Supreme Court two years out of law school. While practising, people can figure out whether they are interested in joining the Supreme Court later in their careers, and they can make learning the second language a priority if they have not already mastered both official languages.

As a francophone, if I had been a lawyer and I thought I might like to be appointed to the Supreme Court one day, I would have made sure to take English courses so that I was completely bilingual. It is the same thing for anglophones. This is an important part of it. People do not just magically end up on the Supreme Court. It is a long process. A lot of hard work goes into getting appointed to the Supreme Court. These people have time to prepare. They have worked in a number of fields and have had time to decide to learn the other language so that they have the qualifications needed to sit on the Supreme Court.

That is why it is important we move away from our traditional approach to appointing judges and make regional representation and bilingualism mandatory criteria. No longer should we need to rely on such voluntary traditions that can be observed or disregarded with each new government depending on which of our friends we may want to appoint. That needs to stop. We need to put rules in place and settle this issue once and for all.

By so doing, we will avoid having to challenge time and again appointments deemed inappropriate or otherwise not in the best interests of our justice system going forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, September 27, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find the will to call it 5:30 at this point so we can start private members' hour.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 5:30?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 April 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), be read the second time and referred to a committee.