Evidence of meeting #32 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was language.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We have to move on. The last question will go to Monsieur Petit.
You have three minutes.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Fraser. We meet regularly in a number of committees. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
You know that this issue is of interest to us, especially since we are dealing with a private member's bill. Of course, you know that the bill is very straightforward. More words would not necessarily amount to more meaning. At times, few words can mean a whole lot.
I am interested in a few words that are taken directly from the bill, and I quote: "[...] who understands French and English without the assistance of an interpreter."
I already asked this question during a meeting that dealt with the same topic. You know that I come from a unilingual French province. Bill 101 is in effect everywhere, even in the court system, etc. My colleague who introduced the bill comes from an officially bilingual province. You understand the difference between the two. Naturally, Bill C-232 intends to establish institutional bilingualism. You are here to speak to that. The bill states "without the assistance of an interpreter". Earlier, you heard that there were a number of lawyers on this committee. Mr. Dosanjh might have been the Attorney General of his province. But being a unilingual anglophone, he could not be appointed to the Supreme Court. Although I am bilingual, I might not be considered for such a position because I might not have the skills required. There is more to this, you see? There is much more.
You might know the Supreme Court. Lawyers send written submissions, requests, there are procedures to obtain the authorization to appear before the Supreme Court, etc. All that is done in the language of origin, for example, French. My counterpart might be anglophone, but I will speak in my own language. However, as Mr. Lemay pointed out a little earlier, a person handles the files. If the words “without the assistance of an interpreter” are used, that would mean that the justice who would be reading my file would have to read all the submissions in the language of the council or client, whether in French or in English. The justice would have to read all the requests in the language of the individual, regardless of his origins, He would have to understand not only when listening, but would also have to have a good written understanding. If it says “without the assistance of an interpreter”, that does not only apply to someone who is speaking to us, but also to all the written material that we receive.
What is your understanding of the expression “without the assistance of an interpreter”? Is it only for oral communications, or for written material as well? Do not forget, this is important. These are expensive considerations.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
In our view, the expression refers to oral discourse. If the bill spoke of translation, that would be different. Interpretation refers to oral communications, therefore to what is submitted orally to a justice.
The three criteria of linguistic ability that are used for public service employees are reading, understanding and verbal interaction. Generally speaking, candidates have much greater difficulty with verbal interaction. Justices are not required to exhibit verbal interaction skills. Justices are not expected to be able to ask questions in the other language, but they must be able to understand the verbal submission.
In general, I have met many public servants who have told me that they had no problem reading or understanding, but they found it far more difficult to express themselves or write.
We would not expect that justices draft their decisions in both languages. Justices have the right to render their decisions in the language of their choice; that is currently the case.
The requirement to be able to understand the arguments in the language chosen by those submitting them to the court is in fact quite simple.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
We're at the end of our time, unfortunately. I want to thank all three of you for your testimony today. We'll certainly take it under consideration as we move forward with this bill.
We're adjourned.
