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.

François Choquette

Transcript

Private Members' Business

Discussions (0)