Justice Committee on March 27th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Did you want the commissioner to answer that question about how you're getting there?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Any answer to that, Commissioner?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

We have to bring some humour to this place sometimes.

[Graham Fraser]

We're wandering a fair way from section 530 of the Criminal Code. The one thing I would suggest is that we have seen examples of deeply unfortunate incidents that arose because of great frustration on the part of an individual and a lack of comprehension of that frustration on the part of police officers who intervened.

Without wishing to cast aspersions on any of the people involved in that process, I think that as.... It should be extremely important for all police officers to have some understanding of the nature of people under stress who don't speak the officers' language. My job involves the two official languages, but there have been incidents involving people who were, not in one of the official languages, venting—smashing chairs—and bad things happened. Had there been better training on how to deal with somebody who does not have either of the official languages, a tragedy could have been avoided.

Again, we're wandering a long way from section 530, but one of the things I've always thought about the nature of official languages in Canada is that when I learned French, I felt I was a prisoner of my accent. I didn't understand the jokes. I didn't understand the cultural context. I realized that's the immigrant experience, so the process of learning French made me more sensitive to the challenges of people coming to this country with other languages and other accents. It is not a question of pitting multiculturalism against linguistic duality—those who speak other languages against those who speak French or English—but of recognizing that there's a certain sensitivity required when two languages encounter each other in a situation of tension.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our final set of questions is being led by Madam Boivin, who is sharing her time with Mr. Jacob.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

My question is a complex one, but I would appreciate it if you could keep your answer brief.

When it comes to preparing our reports, I always try to be very practical. Although principles are extremely important, it's necessary to take a logical and practical view and ask how long all this will take.

If the committee decides it should recommend to Parliament that part XVII be reviewed to broaden its scope, it would certainly have implications resource-wise. Those involved in the administration of justice would need to be able to speak the accused's language, be they judges, interpreters, transcribers, jury members and so forth.

Some things can be accomplished quicker than others. As someone in the official languages business, you know that very often things move at a snail's pace. In this matter, what do you think would be a reasonable timetable?

Once we get to the end of our study, people may get the impression that it was a fruitless debate. I have no doubt that everyone will come to the same conclusion, but some provincial justice ministers seem to be denying the existence of a problem. And the lawyers on the ground don't necessarily agree. Even though everyone comes at the issue through their own lens, it's important to make sure that all the players are involved, because this isn't something the federal government can do on its own.

What would be a reasonable timeframe to recommend as far as putting everything in place goes?

[Graham Fraser]

A series of agreements need to be reached with the provinces. And it has to be addressed in federal-provincial discussions or discussions involving the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general.

When it comes to the judicial appointment process, meeting the language requirement is thought of as checking a box and that's the end of it. In fact, that's why we recommended, as a first step, assessing the needs and evaluating candidates' language skills. Our report outlines a series of timetables. What's important is establishing a timetable, even if it isn't necessarily followed. A clear message has to be sent.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You have to start somewhere.

[Graham Fraser]

What matters is that you decide on a reasonable timetable for each area, be it a year or 18 months. As a former reporter, timetables and deadlines are particularly important to me. Even if some provinces and courts aren't able to meet the deadlines, just having established a timetable sets a certain pace, if you will. It creates a sense of urgency when you have to respond to a letter from the Minister of Justice requiring you to move forward.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Definitely. Thank you.

Forgive me, Pierre.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Do you have a quick question?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Fraser, I'd like you to elaborate on something you said in your brief: “Appointing bilingual judges according to demand only contributes to this situation and creates a vicious circle that is detrimental to the implementation of part XVII of the Criminal Code.”

Could you kindly elaborate on that?

[Graham Fraser]

We've talked at length about the matter of accused not availing themselves of their right to be tried in the language of their choice. A chief justice might think another bilingual judge isn't needed because only a half-dozen or twenty trials, out of a great many, have been conducted in French only. But that isn't a true assessment of the needs. Instead, the proper way to assess the needs is to consult with the province's association of French-speaking jurists. Such an association would be in a position to estimate how many of its clients would exercise their language rights if they had assurance that the system would work as effectively in French as it did in the majority language. That would be a better way of assessing the needs, as opposed to basing the decision on the fact that a small number of cases have been tried in French. That isn't an acceptable approach, in my view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner and Director, for joining us this morning and having a chat about the bigger issue, I think, of official languages in the justice system, and not just about part XVII.

But we are dealing with part XVII, and we will be dealing with that from here on. What we will do now is suspend for a few minutes and go in camera to talk about drafting a report and about directions.

I want to thank you for that.

We'll suspend for five minutes and then go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]