Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to speak to an important issue for Canada, namely its two official languages.
I believe that French is important. When I was elected for the first time, in 2011, I made a commitment to learn French for a number of reasons, the most compelling being that I felt it was important to be able to communicate with voters in their first language.
Charlottetown's Acadian community is flourishing, and the Carrefour de l'Isle-Saint-Jean is its cultural and educational heart. To be honest, I am quite eager to go back there for the annual Club Richelieu fundraiser tomorrow night.
Each week, when I am in Ottawa, I take an hour or two to learn French and practise. I do the same when I am at home, in Charlottetown. Learning the other official language has been very gratifying for me personally.
Prince Edward Island has a rich history in terms of French and Acadian language and culture, and we embrace it, knowing that Canada's linguistic duality is very important. It is not just a legal or constitutional matter. Promoting and understanding French can be a unifying force for us all.
Today we are talking about the role that the French language plays in the legal system. The bill introduced in the House is a legislative measure that, I can only assume, is driven by the member for Acadie—Bathurst's great sense of pride.
The hon. member is part of a different caucus, and that is not a criticism. I must say that I admire his passion and strong commitment to Canada's official languages as well as his dedication to ensuring institutional bilingualism in the courts. I hope he knows just how much respect members from both sides of the House have for him.
Let us move on to the bill. It would amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act and introduce a new requirement for judges appointed to the Supreme Court to understand English and French without the assistance of an interpreter. Some members will recall that the idea of amending the Supreme Court of Canada Act has been proposed in the House of Commons a number of times in previous parliaments. That includes a similar bill that was introduced by our former colleague, the hon. Denis Coderre, who is now the mayor of Montreal.
I am in favour of second reading of this bill, despite some minor reservations that I will come back to in a moment. I also believe that my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville is in favour of this, which convinces me a little bit more that this bill deserves to be studied and to be given second reading.
I invite our Conservative colleagues to support this bill so that it can go to committee, where it will certainly have a full hearing. In this way we will be able to evaluate the merits and the flaws of the bill and give the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights the opportunity to hear from experts.
I would like to say that I am very reluctant to use a private member's bill to amend such an important law. I would like to explain.
The Criminal Code of Canada is a vitally important piece of legislation that plays a major role in the day-to-day lives of Canadians. I believe that it should not be tinkered with by a frustrated member who would like to score some political points in his riding and, even worse, against his leader. However, the Criminal Code, which is so important, has unfortunately been deformed by a series of private members' bills introduced by Conservative backbenchers.
The purpose of these bills is mainly to fundraise by making it seem as though the Conservatives are fighting crime, while deliberately ignoring the evidence and the hard facts.
For the Conservatives, the Criminal Code is just a tool for garnering donations from people who do not understand the evidence and the facts and are convinced that vengeance is the only form of justice. The frequent use of private members' bills to amend criminal law has made the Criminal Code somewhat incoherent.
It is wrong to tinker with the Criminal Code, unless of course the goal is to slowly and surreptitiously amend it, with the support of the Minister of Justice, who perhaps prefers to resort to private members' bills because, unlike other bills, they are not subject to the usual process for ensuring compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I say that because the Supreme Court of Canada Act is also a piece of legislation that should be considered of the utmost importance given how the Supreme Court influences all our institutions.
This is a concern I have in general with the use of a private member's bill for what should be in the bailiwick of a government acting in consultation and in agreement on matters of such great national importance.
These statutes should only be amended in circumstances that are of national significance and for which the implications are particularly meaningful to the whole of the country. Ideally, these types of changes should be driven by government, acting in a coordinated manner and in the national interest.
The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst would surely agree with me that the constant tinkering with the Criminal Code, as an example, for purely partisan reasons is not the ideal.
I have similar concerns with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada Act. We should not, in normal circumstances, change such an important piece of legislation by means of a private member's bill. I say this knowing that one of my former colleagues, now the Mayor of Montreal, was one of the first to suggest changes to the Supreme Court of Canada Act that are now before the House.
We do not, however, operate in normal circumstances.
I do not believe that we have a government that acts consistently in the national interest, and I do not think that have a properly functioning democracy. We see this every day in the House, where Conservative members read scripts attacking others, heckle and shout at other members when they speak, and generally operate on the principle of division and negativity.
My assertion is merely confirmed with the their new unfair elections act, which is a transparent attempt by Conservatives to game the system for political advantage. We have, as Bob Rae rightly suggested, elected a motorcycle gang in Ottawa, a group that will do and say anything to win.
In normal times, when matters regarding the appointment of a Supreme Court justice arise, we would be assured that the process would unfold in a manner that was inclusive and meaningful. Canadians also expect matters related to the Supreme Court to be treated in a non-political way, and we expect appointments to be made to ensure a proper linguistic, gender, and regional balance as part of the process.
Again, these are not normal times.
We are reminded of the actions of the current Minister of Justice, who botched the appointment of Justice Nadon, an individual who was well respected and a capable jurist and who served on the Federal Court with honour. Justice Nadon endured public scrutiny and no doubt unwelcome attention simply because the current government mishandled the Supreme Court process.
Moreover, in order to fix the mishandling of the appointment of Justice Nadon, the Conservatives treated the Supreme Court of Canada Act with disdain, tacking on an amendment to the Supreme Court of Canada Act as part of a large budget omnibus bill. Such is the extent of the government's lack of respect for the court and for process.
This approach to the Supreme Court of Canada Act is completely at odds with how we should treat legislation of such significance. We should change the court's enabling legislation only when absolutely necessary, and not at the demand of a backbench MP, whether that person is from an opposition party or the government. That is my primary concern with the bill.
It relates not to the substance necessarily, but rather that we find ourselves with a government uninterested in dealing with the issue itself and to do so knowing that the issues around French language and linguistic duality are important and meaningful.
Let me close by again complimenting the member for Acadie—Bathurst for his effort. I hope that the hon. member will be open to answering some questions that I have on the substance of the bill when, hopefully, it makes its way to committee. That will require the Conservatives to do the right thing in the current context and allow the bill to go to a proper hearing.
