Richard Nadeau

[International Day Against Homophobia, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, May 17 is International Day Against Homophobia. In honour of this day, famous playwright and novelist Michel Tremblay will receive the 2010 Fight Against Homophobia Award.

We must take this opportunity to consider how far the gay and lesbian community has come, but also how much further it has to go. Although gays and lesbians have more rights than ever, it may all be for naught with this Reform-style Conservative government.

By removing any reference to homosexual rights from the immigrants' handbook and by reducing or eliminating funding for gay pride festivals in Montreal and Toronto, this Conservative government has made it clear it want to hide and silence homosexuals.

The Bloc Québécois would like to take this opportunity to say that we want to live in a society free of prejudice that welcomes everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.

[Use of Wood, May 13th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, recently the House of Commons voted in favour of Bill C-429 to promote the use of wood in the construction and renovation of federal buildings.

The federal government has just announced the construction of two office towers in Gatineau. This is an excellent opportunity for the federal government to promote the use of wood in the construction of these two buildings.

A number of countries such as Sweden, France, Austria and Norway, have already implemented similar measures that have had a significant environmental and economic impact.

Over the past few years, the forestry industry in the Outaouais, and in a number of regions in Quebec, has lost thousands of jobs. The Conservative government could show vision and send a positive message to thousands of forestry workers in Quebec by promoting this type of policy.

[Official Languages, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' argument that a bilingualism requirement could impede the careers of unilingual francophone judges simply does not hold water. Since its inception, the Supreme Court has not seen very many unilingual francophone judges.

The government is being totally ridiculous by claiming that competence must take precedence over bilingualism. Is the government trying to say that it would be impossible to find six judges who are both bilingual and competent outside of Quebec?

[Official Languages, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this government's attitude regarding the bilingualism of judges is very telling. They are prepared to accommodate a facade of bilingualism, but when it comes to using French where it counts, such as in our highest court, all of Canada has to be persuaded and too bad if francophones like Michel Doucet have to argue their cases before unilingual judges who are at the mercy of the limitations of translation.

Why does the government refuse to recognize the right to be heard and to express oneself in French?

[Official Languages, April 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the appointment of judges who do not understand French is another aberration of the system, according to former judge Claire L'Heureux-Dubé. Independent senators who are being courted by the Conservatives to block a bill requiring bilingualism do not see why judges should understand French, because as they put it, “about 70% of this country functions in English every day.”

Is that the bottom line for the Conservatives: in Canada, French is just a second-class language that has no place in the courts?

[Franco Materazzi, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Franco Materazzi passed away on March 29, 2010. The Outaouais region is in mourning for a great economist.

Mr. Materazzi studied and was familiar with the region's economic development, and was a key contributor to it as well. He identified all the problems our businesses face with regard to federal government contracts, and outlined the challenges of developing high-tech companies in the Outaouais region. His many studies have become indispensable.

I met Mr. Materazzi and immediately understood why he was so admired. His dream was not to take centre stage, but to help businesses get established. He was a compassionate man, who was involved with the Fondation de l'Université du Québec en Outaouais for many years.

On behalf of myself and my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I offer my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Materazzi.

[Jean Labonté, March 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, despite the Canadian sledge hockey team's heartbreaking defeat at the Vancouver Paralympic Games, I would like to congratulate all of the players, especially Gatineau citizen Jean Labonté, team captain and defenceman.

I would like to highlight Jean Labonté's courage, determination and indomitable will. Despite the team's defeat, he showed that he is a first-rate athlete and a great and passionate man. I cannot help but admire this accomplished player. As a hockey fan, I know that he and his team gave us the most exciting games of the whole event.

I do not know whether he will continue to play next year. I have heard rumours that he has played his last game. If that is true, then my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I would like to wish him the best of luck in his future endeavours.

Bravo, Jean Labonté.

[Supreme Court Act, March 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I will be speaking today about Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages).

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-232 for the following reasons.

This bill seeks to make the understanding of French and English without the assistance of an interpreter a requirement for judges appointed to the Supreme Court. The Official Languages Act provides that English and French have equality of status and use. It is the right of any citizen to use French or English before Canada's courts, based on fundamental linguistic rights and the Official Languages Act, which already recognizes the importance of being understood without the assistance of an interpreter before federal tribunals such as the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. Furthermore, simultaneous translation can create problems because it does not allow adequate reaction time to interrupt someone, to ask questions, whether for the justice, the lawyers or even the individuals subject to trial who have a right to be able to understand all the nuances and subtleties of each language

For all these reasons, we support this bill.

The Constitution and the Official Languages Act state that English and French are the official languages, and that they have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and the Government of Canada. Under the Constitution and the Official Languages Act, there is full and equal access in both languages to Parliament, to the laws of Canada and to courts.

The Official Languages Act provides the details and conditions for access to the courts in both official languages. Under the law, federal courts other than the Supreme Court of Canada—at this time—have the duty to ensure that any officer who hears proceedings: is able to understand English without the assistance of an interpreter, if English is the language chosen by the parties for the proceedings; is able to understand French without the assistance of an interpreter, if French is the language chosen by the parties for the proceedings; is able to understand both languages without the assistance of an interpreter, if both English and French are the languages chosen by the parties for the proceedings.

As recognized by the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, a member of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Canada's Official Languages Act recognizes the importance of being understood before federal tribunals without the assistance of an interpreter. The same law should apply to the Supreme Court of Canada. Ironically, the Officially Languages Act currently excludes the Supreme Court from these conditions, even though it is the highest court in the country.

The Bloc Québécois thinks that this should change, which is why it supports Bill C-232, currently before the House.

We keep hearing that Canada is our country. But we can appear before a Supreme Court judge and they are not required to understand French, our language. This would not happen if Quebec were a sovereign nation. This is one of the main issues.

The original bill, introduced in the 39th Parliament, which required Supreme Court judges to understand both official languages, got a number of reactions and received considerable support, in particular, the support of the Quebec National Assembly. On May 21, 2008, all the members present at the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion that stated:

That the National Assembly of Québec affirm that French language proficiency is a prerequisite and essential condition for the appointment of Supreme Court of Canada judges.

The Premier of Quebec said:

Knowledge of French is important, very important. It is not a choice. And the message we are sending today to the federal government is that it is not optional—

He added that this motion was a “requirement”.

To know a language is to know a culture, a reality. And those who are called on to interpret that reality and make decisions that will have a very important impact on our lives have to know that reality through our language.

—open federalism must ensure that judges appointed to the Supreme Court by Ottawa know Canada's two official languages.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages also looked at the issue of comprehension of the two official languages by Supreme Court judges during the 39th Parliament.

In its fourth report, which was released in May 2008—I was there—it “recommends that the government ensure that the judges that they appoint to the Supreme Court are bilingual”, in other words, that they speak French and English.

I should note that the Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages refused to support this motion, which was similar to Quebec's motion. That is deplorable. Some of those Conservatives were Quebec francophones who renounced their own language. And that is terrible.

The Canadian Bar Association decided to take a stand in favour of requiring that future Supreme Court judges be bilingual. The association supports a merit-based process for appointing judges, but believes that bilingualism should be one of the selection criteria.

In May 2009, Commissioner of Official Languages Graham Fraser came to testify before the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which was then looking at the issue of access to justice. I will quote from what he said:

Every Canadian’s right to use English or French in Canadian courts is one of the basic language rights set out in our constitutional framework.

To ensure that all litigants have true access to the superior courts in the official language of their choice, it is essential that these courts have a sufficient number of bilingual judges at their disposal. The appointment process must therefore ensure the bilingual capacity of superior courts. Otherwise, access to justice in both official languages is compromised...

To date, the federal government’s responses to the recommendations of my predecessors and the House of Commons and Senate committees have been timid and largely inadequate.

...

On the eve of the 40th anniversary of the Official Languages Act, it seems to me that knowledge of both official languages should be one of the qualifications sought for judges of Canada’s highest court. Setting such a standard would prove to all Canadians that the Government of Canada is committed to linguistic duality. I find it essential that an institution as important as the Supreme Court of Canada not only be composed of judges with exceptional legal skills, but also reflect our values and our Canadian identity as a bijural and bilingual country.

Access to justice is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system. The insufficient bilingual capacity of the superior courts and courts of appeal of the provinces and territories means that a significant segment of the Canadian population is being denied the right to access justice in the official language of its choice.

...A review of the appointment process is essential to ensuring equal access to justice in both official languages.

[Supreme Court Act, March 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who is working very hard for Acadians and all his constituents as well as for ensuring that French is respected both within New Brunswick and across Canada.

The hon. member knows that I am a sovereignist, a separatist, with a Franco-Ontarian background who has lived in Saskatchewan. I have lived more years outside Quebec than in Quebec. How am I supposed to feel like at home in this country if the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, does not even respect the fact that I should be able to be heard and understood by the judges sitting on that court?

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Madame Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for his question.

The Conservatives came into the House pleased as punch that they were able to take advantage of the weakness of the party that preceded them—the Liberals—who, we remember, were embroiled in the sponsorship scandal. The Conservatives introduced omnibus legislation stating that they, in the Conservative Party, drink bleach cocktails every day and are therefore more pure than anyone could ever believe.

And I take this literally. It seems to me that they really must be drinking bleach cocktails and that this is causing memory lapses. It is not causing sclerosis of the liver. It is going to the head and creating large holes—like cheese—in the party's grey matter, should such a thing exist. But we must play nice.

The Conservative government is operating as though it is above the fray. Take, for example, the member for Jonquière—Alma who goes from point A to point B by helicopter, making announcements—