House of Commons Hansard #218 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was forest.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties and I think you would find unanimous consent that the 40th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.
Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
It being 6.03 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.
The House resumed from March 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-203, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Supreme Court ActPrivate Members' Business
Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs Québec
Liberal
Marc Miller LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-203 today. It is an important bill and it seems to me that it reflects a value shared by the members of the House, who believe that it is important that Canadians across the country truly have access to the courts in the official language of their choice, and that includes the Supreme Court of Canada. I congratulate the member for Drummond for bringing forward this issue.
That said, although I applaud the objectives of this bill, I believe that the focus on the Supreme Court of Canada is misplaced and that it would be better to redirect these efforts in order to strengthen the bilingual capacity of Canada's superior and appeal courts.
First of all, the government has already taken real steps to ensure that judges appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada are actually bilingual. Focusing on superior courts across Canada will ensure that this benefits a greater number of Canadians and that there is a larger pool of bilingual judges that could be future candidates for the Supreme Court of Canada.
I am proud of everything our government has done to support official language minority communities. I am especially proud that our government has again demonstrated the strength of its commitment to enhancing the bilingual capacity of Canadian superior court judges at all levels.
On September 25, the Minister of Justice announced the action plan for enhancing the bilingual capacity of the superior courts. During her announcement, the Minister of Justice emphasized that all Canadians are entitled to have fair and equitable access to the justice system, which should be able to respond to their needs in the official language of their choice, and I think we can all agree on that.
The action plan initiatives will enable the government to assess the situation with respect to equal access to the superior courts in both official languages and take concrete action to close any gaps. I would also note that September 25 was Franco-Ontarian Day. I think it was smart to announce the action plan that day.
The seven-point action plan includes strategies for enhanced tools to verify and assess the bilingual capacity of judicial applicants, examine language training for current members of the judiciary, and confirmation of the minister's commitment to collaborative consultations with chief justices with respect to the bilingual capacity needs of their courts. The government is also committed to consulting with provinces and territories on relevant bilingualism initiatives in superior courts.
The action plan builds on our government's commitment to make every effort to develop a superior court judiciary with a sufficient bilingual capacity across the country in all trial and appellate courts. That is part of the government's overall objective of having a judiciary that reflects the face, voice, and reality of the Canadian population.
Of course, increasing the bilingual capacity of the Canadian judiciary will ensure not only greater access to justice in superior courts in both official languages, but also a rich pool of bilingual candidates for Supreme Court of Canada appointments.
The vast majority of Canadians will not bring a case before the Supreme Court, but will more likely have civil or family law cases before superior courts.
Allow me to paint a picture of the strategic measures that the government has already taken to ensure that candidates who are functionally bilingual are appointed to the Supreme Court.
Our government believes that the Supreme Court of Canada should reflect the linguistic duality of this great country. That explains the mandate of the Independent Advisory Board on Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments, whereby the committee is to submit a list of qualified, functionally bilingual candidates to the Prime Minister for consideration.
The government's commitment to appoint functionally bilingual judges only is also part of the statement of merit criteria for evaluating candidates, a list that accessible and easily obtained on the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs website.
During the implementation of the new appointment process, Justice Malcolm Rowe appeared before parliamentarians gathered at the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa and clearly demonstrated that he was functionally bilingual.
Furthermore, our government confirmed this commitment on June 13 when it tabled its response to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on the new process for judicial appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.
On July 14, 2017, the Prime Minister of Canada launched a second process to select a Supreme Court justice in order to identify the ninth member of the court who will fill the vacancy created by the upcoming retirement of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. This advisory board will follow the same appointment process to ensure the appointment of jurists who are of the highest calibre, functionally bilingual, and who reflect the diversity of our great country.
I would now like to elaborate on measures introduced by our government following the changes made in October 2016 to the process for judicial appointments to the superior courts. The objective of these measures was to bolster public confidence by making the process more open, transparent, and accountable in order to foster diversity and gender balance in the judiciary.
Among the reforms was a requirement for greater detail regarding applicants’ self-identified bilingual capacity, the possibility of language assessments, and a new reporting requirement. The action plan announced on September 25 builds on those changes and takes important new steps in the areas of information gathering, training, and collaboration for and among many stakeholders.
The changes made in 2016 are already delivering results. For example, during question period in the House of Commons on September 25, the minister said she was very pleased that the critical reforms to the judicial appointments process had led to increased bilingual capacity, with five out of the eight judges in northeastern Ontario being fluently bilingual.
When the action plan was unveiled, the minister also said she was pleased that it addressed many of the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages in his 2013 report, entitled “Access to Justice in Both Official Languages: Improving the Bilingual Capacity of the Superior Court Judiciary”. The report was produced in partnership with the commissioner's Ontario and New Brunswick counterparts. I understand this report was highly useful in the development of the action plan.
In closing, our government remains strongly committed to ensuring that Canadians across the country have real access to justice in the official language of their choice. I believe that our approach is the best way to fulfill our shared commitment to making sure our courts reflect the linguistic duality of this country.
Our government has kept its promise to appoint only functionally bilingual justices to the Supreme Court. Now it is time to expand that initiative to our superior courts and courts of appeal.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak to Bill C-203, introduced by the member for Drummond. Bill C-203 would amend the Supreme Court Act to require that judges appointed to the Supreme Court understand both English and French, without the aid of an interpreter.
The Supreme Court as an institution already fully functions in both English and French. All services and communications of the court are provided in English and French. All those who appear before the court are free to use English or French in written or oral submissions. All judgments of the court are issued in English and French. All factums submitted to the court are translated, and during oral proceedings, judges and lawyers at the court have the benefit of simultaneous translation.
Therefore, it begs the question, if the court as an institution already is fully functional in both English and French, what benefit would Bill C-203 serve? Proponents of Bill C-203 seem to make the crux of the argument that judges who rely upon professional translators may somehow miss nuances in oral argument, which in turn would lead to rendering of improper decisions.
The Supreme Court was established in 1875. For 142 years, the Supreme Court has heard and decided upon thousands of cases. During the debate around this bill and identical bills that were introduced in previous Parliaments, not one proponent of the bill could cite a single case that was decided wrongly, definitively on the basis of translation errors. There is not one case. Moreover, in the event that a case was decided wrongly, there is a remedy available. That remedy would be a rehearing of the case.
Therefore, it again begs the question that, if there is no case that has definitively been decided wrongly on the basis of a translation error, and if there is already a remedy available in that very unlikely event, what purpose would Bill C-203 serve? I submit that in the face of those facts and the evidence of what Bill C-203 is, however well intentioned, it is a bill in search of a problem that does not exist.
What Bill C-203 would do, however, if it were passed, is create many problems. First, it would significantly reduce the pool of qualified candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court. The fact is that, outside the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick, very few Canadians are fluently bilingual.
Indeed, had Bill C-203 been the law, some of Canada's most distinguished jurists would never have been appointed to the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice McLachlin, not to mention former chief justices Duff, Laskin, and Dickson. Justice Moldaver would not be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, as he presently does. Justice Major from Alberta, who served on the court with distinction for 13 years, would not have been qualified. I could go on.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Justice Sopinka is another, as the member for Durham correctly points out.
While the purported objective of Bill C-203 is to ensure that nuances of oral argument are not lost in translation, I would submit that the likelihood of nuances being lost are much more likely to occur in the event that Bill C-203 were passed. If translators at the Supreme Court, who are among the best translators in Canada, make mistakes, then what is the likelihood that a judge hearing a highly technical, highly complicated legal argument in his or her second language might also miss nuances of oral argument? Common sense dictates that it is a certainty, and I submit it is a certainty that will occur much more regularly if Bill C-203 is passed.
Then there are serious practical issues. Would a test be administered to determine proficiency in English and French? Who would be the arbiter of that test? What would happen to the current nine members of the Supreme Court? Would they have to take a test? If they did not pass, what would then happen? That is just touching the surface of some of the practical issues that would be faced.
While Bill C-203 is well intentioned, it is a fundamentally flawed bill. I fully agree that being able to understand English and French is a highly valuable skill for a Supreme Court justice to have, and I believe that it should be a consideration that goes into determining whether an applicant should be appointed. However, linguistic characteristics must not trump experience, competence, and excellence in the law, not to mention the many other personal characteristics that are essential for a jurist to serve on the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada.
As I say, Bill C-203 is well intentioned, but the problem with it is that it searches for a problem that simply does not exist, to the detriment of appointing the most qualified candidates to the Supreme Court of Canada, and it is on that basis that I oppose Bill C-203.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-203, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act, which deals with the understanding of official languages.
I would like to start by congratulating and thanking the member for Drummond for introducing Bill C-203. He has taken up a cause once championed by Yvon Godin, our former colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who introduced the same legislation in 2008, in 2010 and again in 2014. This just goes to show that principles matter. On those three separate occasions, the NDP voted in favour of the bill, and the Liberal members, too, three times voted in favour of this very same bill we are discussing today.
That said, some of the speeches I have heard coming from the Liberal benches lead me to believe that they may not do so again. I wonder, if the Liberals believed this legislation to be sound on three separate occasions over a 10-year period, why would they cease to think so now that they are in government? It should be noted that this bill is very similar to one that passed in the last Parliament, a bill that was sponsored by Alexandrine Latendresse, then member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, and dealt with the language skills of officers of Parliament. Some of the points argued by my Conservative colleagues remind me of some of the ones I heard back then, when we were debating this same bill that would have required officers of Parliament to be bilingual.
The same applies today. The issue of the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges is a fundamental one. It involves not only sitting judges and those who may one day be called to the bench, but also the right of every Canadian to be served in their language of choice when appearing before our country's highest courts. It is one thing to be able to plead one's case in a given language, another thing entirely to be understood in that language.
To my mind, bilingualism is not an asset but rather a required skill, which is why the words “understanding the official languages” appear in the bill's title. This is about a specific skill among judges that will be called upon to hear cases in English and in French.
I will only read two quotes in my 18 allotted minutes. The first one comes from Serge Rousselle, former law professor at the University of Moncton, currently serving as the member for Tracadie-Sheila and Minister of Education in the Liberal government of New-Brunswick. I have known Mr. Rousselle since my days at the University of Ottawa. I know him very well, and I know how committed he is to advocating on behalf of francophone minorities.
This former law professor and dean of the University of Moncton's faculty of law said the following:
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.
Moreover, how can one fully grasp a case in French when many documents have not been translated in English and cannot be directly accessed by unilingual anglophone judges?
This is a fundamental question that runs counter to what my colleague for St. Albert—Edmonton mentioned moments ago. From a logistical standpoint, it can be difficult to ensure the availability in both languages of all of the documentation needed to hear a case while sitting on the country's highest court. This is not only about translating documents, but also interpreting oral arguments. As competent as interpreters are, when they are called upon to interpret arguments that sometimes rely on extremely technical language, that can lead to disagreements over the meaning of what was said. I could quote several members of the legal profession who are of the belief that interpretation simply failed to reflect their arguments' level of sophistication.
That is entirely understandable. Interpreters are only human. Though I may consider myself to be bilingual, I do not envy them their work, which is extremely difficult. That said, the fact remains that some cases that end up before our country's highest court, the court of last resort, are inadequately heard by some Supreme Court justices.
Michel Doucet, a most esteemed law professor at the University of Moncton specializing in linguistic rights, said the following not too long ago:
I have had the opportunity to appear before the Supreme Court on at least seven occasions. I've also gone before a number of tribunals. I believe that my specific experience in the courts has enabled me to see to what extent it is important for judges to be able to directly understand the submissions made by the various parties.
In the week after I had argued a case before the Supreme Court, I had an opportunity to hear the English version of my arguments on CPAC, and I understood why I had lost the case five to four. The translation did not allow me to understand my own words. I wonder how justices can fully understand the matter at hand when they have to go through translation in which significant aspects of a submission are missing. When you win 9:0, there is no problem, but when you lose 5 to 4, you automatically wonder whether you should not have argued in English.
These words from a highly respected legal expert should be reason enough for us to want to study, at the very least in committee, the amendments that our colleague from Drummond proposes in Bill C-203.
I am asking government members and even my Conservative opposition colleagues to at least give the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights the opportunity to debate this fundamental issue. It is not enough for government members to say that the issue is resolved because we have bilingualism programs for lower court judges that are ultimately supposed to help put more judges in superior courts. Nor is it enough to say that the problem will go away because the current government has a process to appoint bilingual judges. The same argument could have been used in the context of the bill on language skills for officers of Parliament.
If the government is going to appoint bilingual judges, why do we need a bill? Because it is not enough. We need to enshrine this requirement, this recognition in law to make sure it really happens and to make sure the changes stick. I do not know if other Liberal members will be speaking to this bill, but I would urge them to consider some of the facts I mentioned, which I will now recap.
First of all, while in opposition, the Liberal Party supported this same bill three times in the past 10 years: in 2008, 2010, and 2014.
Did their principles change when they were elected? I certainly hope not. It is not enough that this government is wiling to appoint bilingual judges to the Supreme Court; we need to enshrine this principle in the law. Otherwise, there is no guarantee that a future Liberal, Conservative, or NDP government, or any other governing party, will be able to guarantee bilingualism within the Supreme Court, thereby guaranteeing that francophone and anglophone litigants will be understood in the same way and provided an equal playing field.
Equal access to justice in both official languages is a fundamental principle. In this country, our laws are not written in English and then translated into French. Laws introduced by francophone members are not drafted in French and then translated into English. Both versions are equally valid. This principle matters when interpreting legislation. That is why we must enshrine it in law.
Now, we are the first to admit that this bill may not be perfect, as I know the member for Drummond is aware. For instance, there is the issue of whether it may create barriers to the appointment of indigenous judges. On this side of the House, by which I mean me, the member for Drummond and the rest of the NDP, we are open to amendments that would allow us to address this issue. Such amendments could be moved in committee, for example.
The bottom line is that the House should not dismiss the member for Drummond's proposal out of hand, because it touches on a fundamental element on which the Liberals and the NDP have agreed for 10 years.
Let us pass this bill at second reading so we can tweak it in committee with a view to affirming the principles of providing justice in both official languages and of equality between both official languages in this country, and to ensuring that no case in Canada is lost, or suspected of having been lost, because a judge failed to understand the legal arguments presented because of the language in which they were presented.
I urge the House to vote for Bill C-203 so we can have this important discussion in committee and then return the bill to the House.
David Lametti LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this afternoon to speak to this very important topic and to an institution that is dear to me. You will see why in a moment.
Although I support the intent behind Bill C-203 introduced by the hon. member for Drummond, I sincerely believe that at the end of the day, legislation is neither necessary nor even advisable under the circumstances, even though having bilingual Supreme Court justices is very important and something we should all work toward.
This is the second time I have said as much. I said that the Supreme Court is an institution that is very dear to me. I had the opportunity in my life to be a clerk to a Supreme Court justice from 1989 to 1990. I worked for Justice Peter deCarteret Cory, an Ontario judge who was bilingual.
I would like to correct something that the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton said. Justice John Sopinka was perfectly bilingual. That year, he did not have a clerk so I worked with him, too, and even attended in camera meetings with him in French. It is true that he had an accent that at the time was called the “John Diefenbaker accent”, but his French was impeccable.
Having had that experience, I agree with many of the ideas my hon. colleague just put forward. It is very important that all lawyers' arguments, whether oral or written, be understood without the use of translation. Yes, texts are translated, and yes, much like here, the Supreme Court interpretation service is very good.
However, this is about the process of making legal arguments. When a lawyer seeks to impress the merits of his case upon a judge, every word is carefully selected, which makes legal arguments particularly difficult to translate. It is of the utmost importance, then, for judges to be able to understand both written and oral arguments without the use of translation.
I also participated in a case that was before the Supreme Court and I helped draft a submission to the court. I can assure you that every word is carefully weighed, because there are limits. Once again, it is very important to be able to understand the speaker's arguments and style. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton has a certain style when he makes his speeches. He should understand why it is so important to protect the integrity of an argument's style.
Even if the interpretation is good, it is about convincing someone, so it is very important that our goal be to have bilingual Supreme Court judges.
That said, as a former law professor in a bilingual, bijural faculty, the first thing I have to point out is that the law does not always offer the ideal solution to a problem. In our case, I do not believe this kind of law is necessary.
As my colleague from Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs just told us, we have already taken steps to change the selection process for Supreme Court judges and the process to select a successor to Chief Justice McLachlin to ensure that bilingualism is a central consideration. We have already done that, and it worked well in the case of Justice Malcolm Rowe, and it should continue to be part of the system itself.
My colleague also described the action plan we introduced for superior courts, which is where people have their first contact with the legal system. Supreme Court Justice Cory always said that he was not the most important person in the system and that superior court judges play the most important role because they are the ones that have contact with the people.
While we may agree on the purpose of the bill, and while I would like us to have nine fluently bilingual, or at least functionally bilingual, Supreme Court justices, that is not advisable. When it comes to the Supreme Court, a careful balance must be struck.
What my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques just said is also true in some respects. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to call on a criminal law expert or a trade law expert to help in its understanding because of both the complexity of the subjects it addresses and the language that is used. When the Supreme Court needs such experts, then it is rather significant. In that respect, a bilingual candidate does not necessarily meet the current needs of the court.
I would like for us to maintain this flexibility that allows us, in some cases, to fill some of the possible gaps left among the nine justices. It is also very important to consider the substance of the cases that are brought before the Supreme Court.
The future can be unpredictable. We have to be prudent. That is what are doing with regard to the measures that are already in place. It would be premature to act before seeing whether people fully adopt these measures.
Law students and lawyers already know that they have to be bilingual if there is any hope of being appointed to the Supreme Court. Perhaps in the future it will not be a problem. It is better to be prudent for now.
Finally, there are constitutional issues. If we tried to change the criteria for selecting Supreme Court justices, it is highly likely that the provinces would say that it is unconstitutional. It is best not to open Pandora's box.
The government already has the rather significant burden of justifying the appointment of non-bilingual judges to the Supreme Court. It shifts the emphasis to the judges who are already bilingual. To justify the choice of a judge who is not bilingual, the government has to have a convincing reason. It is already a weighty standard that has the same effect as what the hon. member for Drummond wants to entrench into law. For these reasons, I believe that such a measure is neither desirable nor necessary in the current context.
Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this bill this evening. I believe that my colleagues from Drummond and Rimouski have already laid out a positive case for this legislation. I would like to use my speech to respond to some of what we have heard in opposition to the bill from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, as well as from the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.
The first argument we heard was that the Supreme Court is already bilingual, so there is no problem to solve here. In a similar vein, the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun pointed out that the Prime Minister has already promised to appoint bilingual judges to the Supreme Court. I fail to see these as arguments against the bill. In fact, I think they show that the bill is entirely realistic and achievable, and if the Prime Minister is promising to do this anyway, why not codify it in law? That is the question that I would put back.
It is currently the case that eight of the nine Supreme Court judges are functionally bilingual. New appointments are going to be bilingual. Why not put that into law? The member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun said that, rather than a requirement, it should be left as a primordial criterion. Maybe one needs to be a lawyer to understand the difference between a requirement and a primordial criterion. However, it sounds to me as if we all agree that this is something pretty essential for Supreme Court judges.
The second argument we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton is that there is not a single case that was definitively decided incorrectly, based on a problem with language. I think this is a very strange standard. For a case to get to the Supreme Court, it has to go through a couple of other courts first. The Supreme Court is not adjudicating cases based on the evidence. It is not as though a Supreme Court judge is going to miss a piece of evidence based on not understanding the language. Cases are appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada based on issues of legal interpretation.
It would be difficult to establish that any case before the Supreme Court was definitively decided incorrectly. At that level, it comes down to interpretation, and at that level of nuance, language can be quite important. Again, this notion of proving that a case was decided incorrectly because of language is the wrong standard for this debate.
The third argument we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton was the notion that this bill would reduce the pool of qualified candidates. I think the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun was trying to make the same point when he talked about how specialized certain Supreme Court justices need to be in particular areas of law.
Beyond stating the obvious point that we in the NDP view functionality in both official languages as a very important qualification, I also note that the bill proposes to hold appointees to a very reasonable standard of bilingualism. We are not saying that people appointed to the Supreme Court need to be able to translate Molière or need to be able to speak perfectly in French or in English. What we are saying is that they need to have a basic understanding of both official languages without interpretation. I believe that this is the standard that otherwise qualified candidates for Supreme Court appointments can achieve. I believe that this is a realistic thing to expect of people, and that it is not going to unduly reduce the number of qualified candidates.
The fourth argument we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton was that this bill would result in more errors because Supreme Court judges would be relying on their own imperfect understanding of the other official language, rather than relying on the excellent interpretation services already available at the Supreme Court. However, this bill is not talking about taking interpretation out of the Supreme Court. This bill is talking about adding to that excellent interpretation service a base level of knowledge of both official languages on the part of the judges themselves.
That leads to a more robust system. If someone with a base level understanding of the language is also listening to interpretation, they are going to understand it better and will be able to better detect possible problems with interpretation or translation. We have a better system when we have people with their own understanding of the language who also have access to excellent interpretation and translation services.
The fifth point we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton was about how we are going to test people, if we are going to administer some sort of language exam to people who are going to be appointed to the Supreme Court. I answer this question in two ways. First of all, yes, we do this all the time in the Government of Canada. Every year, we have thousands of public servants who take language exams to establish their proficiency in both official languages. There are certainly tests available that we already administer to determine whether someone can understand both official languages.
The other point I make is that this is a very technical question about what kind of testing we are going to use. If this is really the concern of the Conservatives with this bill, then the solution is to vote to send it to committee so that the committee can look at the different types of tests that might be available. That is not a reason to vote against the bill at this stage of deliberation.
The last argument we heard from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton was that, of course, command of both official languages would be an important consideration, but that we should not make it an official requirement. That was also the fundamental argument we heard from the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun this evening, that it is a consideration, that it is part of the mix, that it is really important but should not be an ultimate requirement. In fact, I think the member went so far as to suggest that it is so important that de facto it is almost already a requirement, that it would be very difficult for a government to justify appointing a Supreme Court judge who is not bilingual.
I make the case that if it is already a kind of de facto requirement, that if as a practical matter one does need to be able to understand both official languages to become a Supreme Court justice, it would actually be better to make it an official requirement because that would send a clear signal to everyone in Canada's legal community that it is a requirement they need to meet to qualify for appointment to the Supreme Court. The worst case scenario would be for someone who is otherwise qualified to go forward in the appointment process thinking that it is not a requirement, only to not be appointed for all the reasons the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun articulated. It is better to just put the requirement out there explicitly in law so that people who aspire to serve on the Supreme Court know this is something they will need to learn, a skill they will need to develop. If as a practical matter it basically already is a requirement, it is better just to have it be an explicit requirement for people, rather than allow for possible confusion about whether candidates for the Supreme Court actually need to be able to function in both official languages.
To sum up, bilingualism is clearly a fundamental cornerstone of our country. We expect federal institutions to be bilingual. That does not necessarily mean that every single person who works in those institutions needs to be bilingual, but we certainly would expect the top people, such as Supreme Court judges, to have a basic understanding of both official languages.
The court already is bilingual. The Prime Minister has already promised to appoint bilingual judges. That shows the feasibility of this bill. It shows that it realistic and achievable. We have heard the argument that we cannot prove that cases have been decided wrongly on linguistic grounds, but again, Supreme Court cases are decided on interpretation so we cannot really prove anything is wrong. All we can do is to say that the adjudication would be better if justices had an understanding of both languages, in addition to having access to the translation and interpretation services that already exist.
Having debunked the arguments against this bill, I invite all members of the House to vote in favour of it.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Before we resume debate, I must inform the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie that she has six minutes left to speak. I will have to interrupt her at about 6:58 p.m. to allow time for the right of reply.
The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-203, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act regarding the understanding of the official languages.
Fair and equitable access to justice is one of the basic tenets of democracy. That is what this bill seeks to ensure, by requiring Supreme Court justices to be able to understand arguments in both of our official languages and enshrining that requirement in law.
Supreme Court justices play a major role in our democracy. They need to meet numerous qualification criteria. One of those criteria is, in my opinion, the ability to understand Canadian citizens in both official languages, which, I will point out, have equality of status under our Constitution.
The NDP is not alone in thinking that. I would like to quote some people who know much more about this topic than me. For example, Serge Rousselle, a renowned Université de Moncton law professor, said:
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.
This is not a theoretical question.
Michel Doucet, another Université de Moncton law professor and a language rights expert, has argued many cases before the Supreme Court. He said:
In the week after I had argued a case before the Supreme Court, I had an opportunity to hear the English version of my arguments on CPAC, and I understood why I had lost the case five to four. The translation did not allow me to understand my own words. I wonder how justices can fully understand the matter at hand when they have to go through translation in which significant aspects of a submission are missing. When you win 9:0, there is no problem, but when you lose 5 to 4, you automatically wonder whether you should not have argued in English.
That is why bilingualism is essential to ensure equal access to justice, and why judges of the Supreme Court, the highest court, must be able to serve all Canadians in either official language. Once again, we are not the only ones saying so.
In his report on access to justice, Graham Fraser, former commissioner of official languages, said that since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, it is crucial that its judges be able to understand all the information and arguments presented, in both official languages without the help of an interpreter, including the nuances that can affect the outcome of a trial.
Mr. Fraser also strongly supported Bill C-232, which had exactly the same objectives and which the Liberals supported at the time.
I am running out of time and I see that I am going to have to cut my presentation short. I would like to point out that the Barreau du Québec and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada support this bill, which is very important.
Our Liberal colleagues are telling us that they promised to appoint bilingual judges. There is a small problem. Our Liberal colleagues always seem to think that they will be in power forever. That is the first problem. At some point, another government could decide to do things differently.
There is one more problem. The member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun said that yes, we are going to appoint bilingual judges, but that we also need some flexibility to not do it. This too seems like a very Liberal thing to say. They make a promise, but they may or may not keep it.
I think this is one more reason to recognize that this is a fundamental issue of access to justice and that this needs to be put in law. This bill could certainly be amended, but I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it so it can go to committee.
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and wind up the debate on this bill to require Supreme Court justices to be bilingual.
For the past two years, I have been on a quest to persuade all of my colleagues of the merits of this bill. I have received support from all sides over the past two years. Some 200 Canadian municipalities, regional county municipalities, and regions have sent letters of support for this bill. Bar associations across Canada, including the Barreau du Québec, support this bill. It is also backed by many renowned lawyers and constitutional experts.
I want to thank all of the members who spoke to this bill today, whether for or against. I hope those who were against will change their minds by next Wednesday. However, I want to thank them for taking the time to debate this extremely important bill that will advance not just the French language, since we often focus on French alone, but the cause of bilingualism as well. Canada has two official languages of equal status. That needs to be recognized and cultivated.
I will quote Graham Fraser, the former commissioner of official languages, who stated why it was so important to have legislation requiring Supreme Court justices to be bilingual.
He said that the Supreme Court was the final court of appeal and that it was imperative that its judges understand, in both official languages and without the assistance of an interpreter, “all the information and arguments presented, including any nuances that may have an impact on the outcome.” He went on to say that simultaneous interpretation and translation had their limits.
We understand where he is coming from, successive official language commissioners have long been calling for the same thing. Even the Liberals voted three times in favour of bills introduced by Yvon Godin, the former member for Acadie—Bathurst. He has been fighting for this for 15 years and I just want to acknowledge his excellent work. Not only did he promote bilingualism, but he also promoted equity and equality before the courts, including the Supreme Court.
I also want to mention how important respecting the rights of indigenous peoples is within the framework of this bill. We do not talk about it enough, but it is absurd that the First Nations and the Métis cannot speak their own language here in the House of Commons.
I hope that the government will change its mind because it is inconceivable that this is not possible. I am calling on all members of the House to refer this bill to committee so that we can propose an amendment along the lines of the following:
Section 35 of the Constitution recognizes aboriginal rights, including rights with respect to the languages of indigenous peoples. If the bill passes, I will bring an amendment at committee stage to confirm that nothing in this law infringes aboriginal rights as recognized by Section 35 of the Constitution.
Progress on this issue is vital. Speaking of progress, I would like to talk about a law that I am very proud of, a law that the New Democrats put forward. New Democrats managed to convince all MPs to unanimously pass Bill C-419 on bilingualism for officers of Parliament. Back then, people raised the same arguments about how we would be better off with a single policy and about how the pool of candidates would not be big enough to appoint all 10 senior officers of Parliament. In the end, everyone agreed that there were 10 senior officers of Parliament and that they all absolutely had to be bilingual.
Now we are talking about the highest court in the land, and the same principle applies. There are nine justices, and they absolutely must be bilingual. That is why I am grateful to my former colleague, Alexandrine Latendresse, who introduced the bill, and to all the members who had the courage to improve bilingualism in Canada by passing the bill on bilingualism for senior officers of Parliament. Let us take another step forward. Let us vote in favour of this bill for bilingual Supreme Court justices.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
In my opinion, the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 25, 2017, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, last weekend, community volunteers and local governments, tired of waiting, took action themselves by cleaning up abandoned vessels despoiling shorelines in the district of Oak Bay.
Oil spills and marine debris from thousands of abandoned vessels pollute our waterways and put local fishing and tourism industry jobs at risk. For too long, jurisdictional gaps have left coastal communities with nowhere to turn when they need help cleaning up abandoned vessels. It is taking a huge financial toll on local governments and volunteers. Oak Bay's local government paid $4,000. The Province of B.C. paid $10,000. Last fall, the neighbouring municipality of Saanich paid $50,000 to clean up abandoned boats along its shoreline. The Oak Bay local government said that there are more derelict boats to deal with in its area, but it will not be able to afford to pay what it did for this past weekend's cleanup every year.
Coastal volunteers have carried the load of abandoned vessels for too long, when provincial and federal governments should have been taking the lead on this long-standing coastal pollution problem.
Josie Osborne, mayor of the District of Tofino, wrote to me saying:
Derelict and abandoned vessels present a significant and costly risk to coastal communities and marine ecosystems. It is far beyond the capacity of local governments to pay for the removal of derelict vessel or even to navigate the complex, multi-jurisdictional nature of derelict and abandoned vessels. Despite society's wish to deal with wrecked vessels, there is no practical or reasonable framework to preventing and responding to wrecks. Bill C-352 would change this.
From Tofino, B.C., to Fogo Island in Newfoundland and Labrador, coastal communities are urging the Liberal government to adopt my legislation, Bill C-352, to clean up abandoned vessels and protect our waterways and coastlines. These include the Union of BC Municipalities, which last month, at its 1,800 member convention, endorsed my bill; the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities; the District of Oak Bay; the District of Tofino; and altogether more than 50 coastal organizations from both sides of the country. I also have the support of the Ladysmith Maritime Society and marinas, harbours, and port authorities from Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, and British Columbia.
These endorsements highlight that coastal communities cannot wait any longer to fix the abandoned vessels problem. When will the government heed coastal communities' repeated calls for action and adopt my legislation to solve the long-standing problem of abandoned vessels?
