Justice Committee on March 25th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, meeting number 16.

Our orders of today are the statutory review of part XVII of the Criminal Code.

For today's witnesses, as an individual we have Mr. Lévesque and from the Language Rights Support Program, we have Madame Boudreau and Madame Loranger. And then as an individual we have Mr. Slimovitch.

We'll turn the floor over to each of you. You have approximately 10 minutes and then there will be some questions in the round. We have two hours set aside for this meeting, I would be surprised if we last the whole two hours, but we have that much time set aside.

So based on the order here, as the individual, we'll start with Mr. Lévesque. The floor is yours.

[Gérard Lévesque, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and ladies and gentlemen members of the committee.

It is as individuals that Geneviève and I have come to meet with the members of the committee, to provide a few examples to illustrate the situation of language rights in Alberta in connection with the Criminal Code.

I will begin by referring to a 1927 quote from the newspaper Le Droit. The quote can be found in the notes which have just been given to you. Today I am only raising the issue with regard to Alberta, in connection with this quote. There has been so much evolution in our country since 1927 that there is no doubt that this quote no longer applies to the vast majority of the country, but I do want to raise the following question. In 2014, is the French language relegated to the status of an excluded and banned foreign language? If so, what is the rationale behind the persecution? Is it still based on legality and the principle that might makes right?

The notes we have given you are an overview of a thirty-page brief which will also be provided to the members of the committee and will allow us to reply to that question.

We have chosen to use what I learned in my classical studies, which is that it is always easier to correct a situation by using humour. In Latin, we say castigat ridendo mores, which means “he corrects customs by using humour”. We have chosen to give you six cartoons published over the past few years in Alberta to describe the situation. These cartoons were published in Alberta newspapers such as the Edmonton Le Franco, the Calgary Le Chinook, and occasionally in the Toronto L'Express to describe unacceptable situations, primarily as regards criminal law.

Unfortunately, in Alberta, the Department of Justice uses its jurisdiction over the administration of justice to prevent or limit the exercise of language rights, even in criminal law matters. Sometimes this is imposed on judges, or on the person subject to trial and the lawyers, which leads people to abandon the exercise of minority language rights. Other times, this is done in a more subtle way. The instruments and work tools of the administration of justice are not available in French, or in a bilingual format.

Our brief will provide a large number of examples that may be useful in drafting the committee's report for Parliament.

Last November, the Minister of Justice wrote to the clerk of the committee in reply to a letter from the chair, Mike Wallace. The French translation of his letter shows that he wrote to Mr. Jean-François Pagé. The official English version signed by the minister, which you received, shows that, rather, he wrote to “Jean-François Page”. At the Department of Justice in Alberta, the keyboards do not have accents. Our brief provides several examples of trial transcripts in French. You will be surprised to see that the accused Marc-André Lafleur has become Marc-Andre Lafleur. I obtained permission from my clients to quote them and to provide all of these texts.

But it goes even further than that. It happens that certain documents have to be signed at the court and are in French. The fact that the name no longer has an accent has serious consequences. I once had a client whose name was Calvé. His name no longer had an accent in the texts, be it in the recognizance to appear or in any other document he had to sign during his appearance. The documents said “Mr. Calve”. It may take some time before you understand whether you are the person being called.

Sometimes, the tactics used by the Department of Justice are less subtle. The instruction manual on how to prepare legal transcripts in Alberta makes no mention of hearings in French, not even at the criminal level.

In the document we will be providing to the committee, you will find the transcript of the criminal hearing in the matter of R. v. Castonguay, held in Calgary. Bear in mind that it didn't take place in the 20th century but, in fact, just two years ago.

Ms. Castonguay's case was the first surprise. Judge Anne Brown agreed with my arguments, which were presented in French, and rendered her decision orally in French. Since there was no written decision, I asked for the transcript, and it did not contain what I had argued in French or what the judge had said in French. We had purportedly used a foreign language. Still today, in Alberta, in 2014, that is what those who prepare proceeding transcripts are instructed to write.

If it's not in English then you put as an explanation a choice of two things: other language spoken or foreign language spoken.

The notation “other language spoken” or “foreign language spoken” appears in the transcript 15 times. The judge's decision does not appear in the transcript. Clearly, then, that represents not only a lack of respect for the independence of the judiciary, but also a denial of an individual's rights. The transcript is paramount in cases where people want to appeal the decision. The transcript has to be filed.

Back to the Castonguay case, because the Crown was not happy that Judge Brown had ruled in our favour, it appealed the decision, in English. The Crown, however, withdrew the appeal as soon as it realized that it would be a perfect opportunity for me to show the superior court what a miscarriage of justice the transcript represented. The words of the person appearing before the court, her legal counsel and even the judge had not been transcribed in the other language of the Alberta courts.

In 2009-10, I argued for four days for a clarification of the Alberta statute whereby citizens can express themselves in English or French before the courts. It wasn't a matter of federal rights but, rather, those set out in Alberta's legislation. In Alberta, citizens are indeed allowed to speak English or French before the three levels of courts. But not until this past September had there ever been a regulation allowing that right to be exercised, so much so that those charged with administering justice, the public servants and lawyers alike, had no idea how to speak French. The barriers were so numerous that French was seldom spoken.

In 2004 and 2009, I established a cause to have that right clarified. It took four days because the Crown argued that my clients and I had the right to speak French, but not the right to be understood in French. That illustrated that the Province of Alberta did not recognize the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, which had overruled the previous authority from New Brunswick whereby Acadians had the right to speak French in the 20th century, but not the right to be understood in French.

In criminal law, more specifically in R. v. Beaulac, in 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that, from then on, language rights had to be given a broad and generous interpretation by the courts in all cases, civil and criminal. But that didn't happen in Alberta, which continued to follow the previous case law. It's almost as though the Alberta Ministry of Justice felt it could use Supreme Court jurisprudence in cases where it saw fit to do so and not in others.

I will now turn things over to Geneviève, who will explain one of the caricatures. I know she's pressed for time because she has a criminal law class at 1 o'clock. She's a second year law student at the University of Ottawa and she definitely does not want to be late for class, even though she would have a good excuse today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for the answer.

And Madame Lévesque, I'm sorry I was looking at an old agenda that didn't have your name on it so I would have introduced you. But thank you for joining us.

The floor is yours for a few minutes.

[Geneviève Lévesque, As an Individual]

Good morning. My name is Geneviève Lévesque, and I am the president of Regroupement étudiant de common law en français, or RÉCLEF, a group that endeavours to promote the interests of law students and improve the French-language tools available to those in the legal profession.

As part of its national mandate, RÉCLEF sent the Minister of Justice a letter in 2010. In response, RÉCLEF received a letter signed by a ministry official, on behalf of the minister.

The caricature contains an exact excerpt from that letter, and it reads as follows:

Bilingualism in Canada is a federal construct — it is not a legal or constitutional requirement.

That comment would suggest that the employee either overstepped his authority and did not convey the minister's position or was authorized to sign the letter without first consulting the minister.

That thinking does not hold up, however, because a few days later, the minister sent Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Alberta, or AJEFA, a letter in which she said, and I quote:

Alberta maintains that bilingualism in Canada is a federal construct — it is not constitutionally required in the provinces or territories.

How can a justice minister claim that the provinces and territories have no obligations when it comes to the country's linguistic duality?

Alberta has laws setting out legal obligations as far as linguistic duality is concerned. The Languages Act, for example, authorizes the use of both languages before the province's courts. The Jury Act sets out language requirements for those who serve on a jury in a criminal or civil case. Therefore, a unilingual francophone cannot sit on the jury in an English-language proceeding, and vice versa.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for your presentation.

Our next presenter—

[Gérard Lévesque]

I would just like to briefly explain the other caricatures, if I may. Geneviève explained the one that mentions the federal construct—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Lévesque, you're over time but I'll give you one more minute because I know you can be succinct.

[Gérard Lévesque]

I want to share an example that shows how the ministry currently interprets French-language forms regarding the Criminal Code. Under the legislation, some forms are provided in both French and English, while others are mentioned but not available in French.

At the court service desk, I asked for the French version of the form whereby clients authorize counsel to represent them but was told that the form was not available in French. So I asked for the bilingual version, and again, I was told that no such version existed.

Consequently, I had to ask my client to waive his rights and to sign an English-only form. I, too, had to sign the form as his counsel. But I asked my client for permission to disclose his identify in a letter I intended to send the ministry to rectify the denial of that right.

The reply I received from the Ministry of Justice was written by the Deputy Minister of Court Services. She said that, in Alberta, in order to receive a French-language form, even under the Criminal Code, it was first necessary to apply for and obtain an order authorizing the trial to take place in French and then to prepare the form oneself. That is unfair treatment given that the English-language form is available for free at the service desk to any person appearing before the court who wants it.

Worse still is that the English-language form prepared by the province contains a section reserved for ministry employees to help with the administration of justice. So when one does prepare the French-language form themselves, it makes the job of ministry employees harder.

What's more, it is incredibly difficult to file a form in French, something I experienced in both Fort McMurray and Calgary. Ministry staff wonder why they are receiving a version of a form they have never seen when the official form exists in English, so they doubt the legality of the form we prepared. The service desk would not accept my form without a letter from the ministry instructing me to write the document myself if I wanted to have one in French.

In our brief, you will find many similar examples with explanations on the failure to respect language rights in criminal matters in Alberta.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Merci beaucoup.

The next presenters are from the Language Rights Support Program.

Madam Boudreau, are you going to lead off?

You have ten minutes.

[Geneviève Boudreau, Director, Language Rights Support Program (PADL)]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee.

As the director of the Language Rights Support Program, the LRSP, it is with pleasure that I give you an overview of the Language Rights Support Program. I will be followed by Guylaine Loranger, who is our legal adviser at the program, who will present on constitutional language rights and access to justice.

The objective of the Language Rights Support Program, or LRSP, is to clarify and advance constitutional language rights.

The LRSP has three components: (1) information and promotion, (2) alternative dispute resolution, or ADR, and (3) legal remedies.

First, under our information and promotion component, we are active across the entire country. We work to educate the public on their constitutional language rights in a number of ways, including forums, to ensure Canadians understand their constitutional language rights, a very complex matter.

Second, our alternative dispute resolution component addresses mechanisms such as mediation and negotiation.

To receive funding under the Language Rights Support Program, applicants must meet the eligibility criteria. There has to be a conflict related to a constitutional language right. Funding helps facilitate access to justice, among other things. Instead of bringing the matter before the courts, the applicant requesting funding and the other party try to resolve the conflict outside the traditional courts system. This method is less expensive and requires less time and energy than bringing the issue before the courts.

Third, under the legal remedies component, more eligibility criteria have to be met than with the ADR component. For instance, to receive funding for legal remedies, applicants must demonstrate that the matter in question constitutes a test case. Whereas applicants seeking funding for ADR methods such as mediation and negotiation do not have to meet the test case requirement.

I may have gone too quickly, so I will repeat it in English.

We have three components: information and promotion; ADR, or alternate dispute resolution; and legal remedies. The information and promotion is really so that Canadians know their constitutional language rights, and the ADR is for people to be able to make their language rights respected. They meet with the government—we provide funding for that—so that the parties can come to an agreement outside of courts, which gives access to justice.

I will now hand things over to my colleague, Guylaine Loranger.

[Guylaine Loranger, Legal Advisor, Language Rights Support Program (PADL)]

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, as the legal advisor to the Language Rights Support Program, I am here to answer the question that was put to me, that being the relationship between the Criminal Code and the objective of the Language Rights Support Program.

The objective of the Language Rights Support Program focuses on constitutional language rights. The Criminal Code is not made up of constitutional language rights, so what do we have to do with the issue? The short answer to that is the LRSP is on the fringes of the Criminal Code.

Those of you in the room who are lawyers know that constitutional questions can be raised in a variety of disputes. Those of you who are not lawyers may be wondering how someone can raise a constitutional question before a court. That may seem like a theoretical question, or at least on the surface, especially when we talk about constitutional law.

I'd like to refer you to a specific case. The applications we receive are confidential, but some applicants do give us permission to release information about their case. To really help you understand the situation, I would refer you to the Losier case, which is summarized in the blog on our Web site. Mr. Losier's case was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick.

What do we do? Our involvement is based on the following premise. Our objective is to advance and clarify constitutional language rights and given that those rights are relatively recent, many questions are asked, and yet little is known in the way of answers.

For example, what constitutes a communication and a service related to a criminal matter when it comes to a trial? As strange as it may seem, receiving a ticket or a search warrant from a police officer constitutes a service and a communication under section 20 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Many such questions are raised.

Why am I referring you to the Losier case? The test case in that situation was whether the active offer of services was a constitutional principle included in section 20(2) of the Charter. That means that the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick recognized that the active offer of services was a constitutional right implicitly included in section 20(2) of the Charter and implicitly expressed in New Brunswick's Official Languages Act. Furthermore, when that constitutional right is violated, the judge cannot consider evidence obtained in violation of the accused's constitutional language rights. That is an actual example to help you understand how we fit in to the big picture.

Applicants seek our assistance, sometimes for issues involving section 20 of the Charter, sometimes for issues involving section 19 of the Charter. On the subject of the delegation of the administration of justice, an example we can look to is the Contraventions Act, whereby the federal government gives the provinces funding to enforce the act.

I mention that example for your reference, but it does not come under our area of responsibility. Those kinds of cases where funding was provided happened before the LRSP was established. That, too, however, illustrates the interface between constitutional language rights and the Criminal Code.

On that note, I would conclude by pointing one thing out: numerous questions can be raised, but few answers have been given so far.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Our final presenter today is Mr. Slimovitch.

The floor is yours.

[Steven Slimovitch, Attorney, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Just to clarify one thing, I appear before you this morning purely in my capacity as a criminal defence lawyer, not representing any group or organization.

It's interesting when I listen to my colleagues from out west. I thought only Quebec had language problems, but I guess not.

I'd like to walk you folks through section 530 and subsection 530(2), which essentially is how the process works. By walking through it, I'll show you how I've experienced an English trial, because obviously if you want a French trial in Quebec, it's pretty easy to have. It's the English trial that is a little bit more complicated.

Section 530 simply says that you have to make an application at a certain point in the process. But that doesn't really have any great importance, because regardless of when you make your application—as long as it's not made on the morning of the trial, because then the judge won't be happy—if you make it virtually any time before the trial, the judge will grant it. It's interesting to note that section 530 says the judge “shall” grant it. So there is actually no discretion given to the judge. There's no linguistic contest here. There's no “Prove to me that you really are anglophone. How many years of English school did you have? I think you're lying. I think you're actually a French person who's trying to hide; therefore, I'm going to refuse the request to order an English trial.” I've never seen that kind of thing happen, and I've never heard of it happening in Quebec.

Subsection 530(3) says the judge or the provincial court judge is to advise the accused person of this right. I've seen one courthouse in which they have preprinted forms that they give to a person who's being arraigned—two courthouses, I should say. But besides those, I've never heard a judge tell a person who's appearing, either represented or not represented, that he has a right under section 530 for a trial in English. I've never heard it.

You have, of course, sections that talk about a trial in English and in French, because you have the difficult situation, and it's becoming more and more common—I would venture a guess it's a question of finance—that more and more trials are not just one accused. They're groups of accused people. I'm involved in one right now, a fraud case with 38 co-accused. You can imagine that these 38 people speak more than one language. It becomes a nightmare to figure out what language the trial will be in, notwithstanding foreign-speaking people—there's Punjabi, there's Greek, there's Italian, and so on.

So the code does set out to a certain degree how you're supposed to proceed in that fashion. Section 530.01 talks about once the order is granted, once the judge says they will proceed in English, what that means on a practical basis. Well, it's supposed to mean that the accused has the right to have the information or the indictment translated into English.

Frankly, that's relatively useless, because all the information or the indictment is going to say is that on or about this date, Johnny Smith did assault Peter Harris, with information on where, how, whether there are statements, police reports, executed search warrants, and so on. Our courts have already decided that you do not have a right to the disclosure materials in English. Here you go. Here they are. You do what you want with them. And it's becoming more and more à la mode, at least in Quebec, to furnish defendants with huge quantities of disclosure—10, 15, 20 DVDs. Well, try to have 20 DVDs translated. And then, interestingly enough, paragraph 530.01(1)(a) says you have the right to have the information or the indictment translated.

Why exactly does 530.01(1)(b) say that you have a right to receive that copy? Well, if you're going to translate it.... What, the translator is going to keep it on his desk? It doesn't make sense.

The only thing that I can think is that again there is a certain réticence to translate, there is a certain hesitation to work in the other language.

Again, the order is granted. What do you have the right to do? You have the right to speak English. Simply put, what does that mean? You have a right to plead in English, you have a right to written proceedings in English, your lawyer has the right to plead in English. Interestingly enough, 530.1(c) talks about how any witness may give the evidence in either official language. An English trial in Quebec basically looks like this almost always: French prosecutor, French judge, English accused, French defence lawyer, French clerk. Artificially you have to drop in English in there. So you sometimes end up with strange situations. You'll end up with a francophone asking a question in his or her broken English translated into French for the witness, witness answers in French, translated into English, that's the end of the first question. You can be here for a long time but frankly that's the only way to proceed.

As I said 530.1(c.1) is a bit of a strange one because it authorizes the prosecutor to examine the witness in his or her language. Frankly, I never knew that 530.1(c.1) existed because if I saw the prosecutors speaking French to a French witness I would move for a mistrial because how can the accused have a trial in English if the prosecutor is speaking French and the witness is speaking French?

What we used to have in Quebec up until probably 2000 was an English trial that worked as follows. Everybody in the court system worked in French. Mister or Madame accused, you can go sit in the corner, we'll put an interpreter next to you, don't make too much noise, and everything will be translated for you. That worked up until decisions that came before Beaulac. And then of course when Beaulac came you couldn't have that anymore. It was just completely absurd.

While it is true that you have a right to an English trial that right, in my opinion at least, is never a problem in a major metropolitan city such as Montreal. I firmly believe that there is a certain amount of judge-switching in order to allow the more comfortable anglophone judge to sit on this case. Of course, you don't see that, that's done behind the wall so to speak.

In outlying regions that's a different story. I have seen bail hearings postponed because frankly the presiding judge couldn't do it. That's very serious. You're talking about an individual who's detained. So we're going to tell him, “You just sit in jail for a few more days, we'll get another judge who can handle the case.” That kind of situation, needless to say, is completely unacceptable.

One of the interesting things is the accused has a right to have a prosecutor who speaks the language. You have a right to have a prosecutor who speaks English, but in Quebec a prosecutor cannot be forced to speak English. So you're saying, “If you have a right to speak English and you can't be forced to speak English, how does English come out?” If you remember back to the Oka Crisis, that stemmed a number of cases.

One of the famous cases was R. v. Cross. Mr. Cross wanted an English trial and the prosecutors from Saint-Jérôme said, “You have a right to an English trial but I'm not speaking English.” Needless to say you have the whole sphere of Bill 101 and the obligatory language, employer, employee and so forth, so eventually the Court of Appeal said, “You have a right to a trial in English, but you can't force him to speak English.” What happens now is when you make a request for an English trial, it's supposed to be noted on some kind of document and the system is supposed to make sure that an English-capable judge is presiding and an English-accepting prosecutor is presiding.

Perhaps the thing that I find most problematic, and I would say unacceptable, is section 531. Section 531 is very simple: if you can't proceed in my case with an English trial, you can get a change of venue.

Well, that's like saying that if you can't get your constitutional rights executed or carried out in this place, go to this place, because they're better on the charter in this place.

That's unacceptable in a country such as ours, with a Criminal Code that specifically says “bilingual trial”.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Very good. Thank you for that.

Thanks for those presentations.

We'll now go to our questions, beginning with Madame Boivin from the New Democratic Party.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I want to thank the witnesses for being with us today to help guide us in our work.

I want to put things back in context. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is tasked with reviewing part XVII of the Criminal Code and following up on how it has been implemented since coming into force. Are there any problems? What can be done to fix them? What improvements can be made?

I really appreciated what Mr. Slimovitch said.

I did appreciate that. I'm a lawyer who practised in the region, so for the longest time I kind of had a different experience. Although we're close to Ottawa, maybe we have a bit more bilingualism. But I had a judge insisting that I would plead and do my final arguments on behalf of the accused in English because he was anglophone. They said he deserved the right—this was pre-section 17—to hear what his lawyer was saying. I tried to convince the judge that I would be brilliant in French and maybe so-so in English, but he said, “I don't care”.

That being said, a lot of the things you said were a bit pre-section 17.

I think the code is clear. It says that a person has the right to stand trial in the language of their choice. The question before the committee—and I don't know if anyone has the answer—is whether we should extend the reach of part XVII. For example, when a person is arrested and an application is made for their release, isn't it paramount that the accused be able to actively participate in the language of his or her choice?

As for what already exists in part XVII, do you have any specific recommendations with respect to interpreters, stenographers, evidence provided to the lawyers, translation and so forth? That is of particular interest to me.

As for the Language Rights Support Program, I think I understand what you do. But, as I understand your work, I am not sure it really applies, especially to part XVII, unless there's a constitutional issue involved. As far as everyday trials go, you have nothing to do with helping judges become more bilingual or supporting the bilingualism of stenographers, interpreters and so forth.

Unless you think part XVII is perfect as it is, what practical measures can be taken to improve it?

[Guylaine Loranger]

To answer your question, we receive applications involving criminal matters. Yes, the Criminal Code should be improved.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

How?

[Guylaine Loranger]

The first thing that should be done is to clarify what applies to trials and what applies to communications and services.

I'll give you an example. We receive applications, but we can't accept them all because they don't always involve a constitutional issue. Nevertheless, the applications we receive give us a sense of what is happening on the ground. In some provinces, as soon as a constitutional language issue is raised regarding the rights of the accused, the charges are withdrawn. I am referring to communications from the Crown as they relate to sections 19 or 20 of the Charter because it is no longer a matter of the trial.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Is the reason that it's too complicated?

[Guylaine Loranger]

They don't want to address constitutional issues. That's practically the mantra in some provinces, and so the charges are withdrawn.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

So they prefer to withdraw the charges than prosecute the accused.

Most criminal matters don't have a constitutional component. We're talking about individuals charged with theft, drunk driving and the like. The usual types of cases.

[Guylaine Loranger]

To that, I would say the Criminal Code is quasi-constitutional.

It's a matter of creating conditions for people who speak a language. It's a matter of identity. The Beaulac decision says clearly it's an issue of recognition. Section 16(3) of the Charter comes into play. It's a matter of having an environment where members of society can access justice.

To improve the Criminal Code, it would be necessary to specify whether it's a right under section 19 of the Charter. Is the administration of a federal statute being delegated to the provinces? If so, it comes under section 19 of the Charter. That should be made clear.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Let's talk about informing accused of their rights. Oftentimes they aren't even made aware of them, and that's the rub. Some lawyers have told us they prefer not to request a trial in the language they and the accused speak simply because it takes too long. All kinds of factors come into play.

I am curious to hear what Mr. Lévesque has to say on the subject. Should all judges be forced to systematically inform accused persons of their rights in the same way?

[Gérard Lévesque]

The provisions prior to the latest amendments to the Criminal Code required the judge to inform the accused when he or she was not represented by counsel. It became apparent that that wasn't sufficient because, in many cases, counsel for the accused did not inform their client that he or she had the right to be heard in the minority language because counsel didn't want to lose the client.

Therefore, Ontario and New Brunswick added an obligation in that regard to their professional codes of conduct. The code recommended by the Canadian Bar Association requires a lawyer to inform clients of their language rights and stipulates that a lawyer cannot deny their client those rights. If a lawyer is unable to serve a client in the language of their choice, the lawyer must refer that person to someone else.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.