Justice Committee on May 27th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I call the meeting to order. We'll use our BlackBerry time here for the accurate time.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, meeting 74, on Monday, May 27. The order of the day is for a review of part XVII of the Criminal Code.

Thank you for joining us again. We were interrupted by bells last time and were unable to meet, so I want to really thank you for joining us again. You never know what will happen, but we will get as far as we can today.

To our witnesses from the Department of Justice—Renée Soublière, Michel Francoeur, and Robert Doyle—thank you for joining us.

Renée, I'll turn it over to you for the first presentation. When you're finished, the next one can begin.

Thank you very much. You have approximately 10 minutes.

[Renée Soublière, Senior Counsel and Litigation Coordinator, Official Languages Law Section, Department of Justice]

Hello. It is a pleasure for us to appear before you today in order to help you begin your review of the Criminal Code's language provisions.

Please allow me first of all to introduce myself. I am Renée Soublière, Senior Counsel and Litigation Coordinator of the Official Languages Law Section, which is part of the Department of Justice's Public Law Sector.

With me this afternoon is Mr. Michel Francoeur, Director and General Counsel of the Office of Francophonie, which is part of the Department of Justice's Justice in Official Languages and Legal Dualism Section. Mr. Francoeur will report on the concrete measures the department has taken with an eye to supporting the respect of language rights set out in the Criminal Code.

I am also accompanied by Mr. Robert Doyle, from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Among other things, Mr. Doyle acts as National Secretary of the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Heads of Prosecutions Committee. He will be able to talk to you about the concrete implementation of the Criminal Code's language provisions, and can answer any questions you may have about this.

First of all, I will explain my role as part of the Official Languages Law Section, the OLLS. The OLLS is a team of specialized legal experts mandated with providing legal advice to the government on issues of language rights that flow from, among other things, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Languages Act and the Criminal Code. The OLLS is also responsible for developing and coordinating the Attorney General's and Government of Canada's positions in linguistic matters that are brought before the courts. Finally, the OLLS is responsible for drawing up any proposed legislative amendment affecting language rights.

As such, the OLLS developed legislative proposals that led to passing the 1988 Official Languages Act, which included amendments to the Criminal Code's language provisions.

It is also in this role that the OLLS participated, with its colleagues from the Criminal Law Policy Section, in drawing up legislative amendments contained in Bill C-13, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments), passed in 2008.

I also had the opportunity and the privilege to act as project leader and to be involved in every step, from the creation of guidelines to consultations, as well as the writing of the bill and the study of it in committee. Moreover, I appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on November 28, 2007, as it began its study of Bill C-13.

It seems important to me to call your attention to the exact wording of the review clause in part XVII of the 2008 Criminal Code. When reading this clause, one can see that it refers to a twofold review. Subsection 533.1(1) does in fact mention a comprehensive review of the provisions and the application of part XVII, entitled “Language of the accused”.

If I considered it important to explain the role and the mandate of the section for which I work, and to call your attention to the wording of the review clause, it is so that you can immediately understand the limits of my comments today. It would be my pleasure to discuss the provisions of part XVII of the Criminal Code, to provide you the context behind the 2008 amendments, and to answer any question you might have in this matter. However, my presentation this afternoon does not deal with the application or the implementation of these provisions, since my team has no role to play in this regard.

With the committee's permission, I'll start by giving a general presentation on the content of sections 530 and 530.1. I believe you have a copy of these provisions, with the English and French versions side by side. I'll then explain the context behind the 2008 amendments.

Before I proceed, it seems important to me to emphasize four points.

First of all, former justice Bastarache, as he was then, said in the Supreme Court ruling R. v. Beaulac, on behalf of the majority, sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code constitute a perfect example of the advancement of language rights through legislative means provided for in subsection 16(3) of the charter. Indeed, the federal legislator, when exercising its power over criminal law and criminal procedure, passed a great number of legislative measures with the intent of extending language rights to the accused before the courts, namely sections 530 and 530.1.

Secondly, one must keep in mind the intent of section 530. Again, according to former justice Bastarache, as he was then, section 530 aims above and beyond all else to provide the accused with equal access to criminal courts, if they speak one of the two official languages of Canada, in order to help official language minorities to preserve their cultural identity.

Thirdly, it must be noted that the right of any accused to be tried in the official language of their choice is nothing new. Indeed, this right was first recognized in the 1969 Official Languages Act. In 1978, and again in 1988, Parliament decided that it would be useful to extend the scope of the language rights of an accused and specify the exact modalities of a criminal trial held in a minority language.

On January 1, 1990, the provisions being discussed, namely sections 530 and 530.1, which you have before you, came into force throughout the country. Any person facing criminal charges could, as of that date, choose to undergo their trial in the official language of their choice, regardless of where in the country they happened to be.

In reality, it means that the various jurisdictions of the country must be able to meet the request for a trial in the minority language and to have available the necessary institutional infrastructure to provide services equally in both official languages.

Fourthly, the amendments passed in 2008 were not intended to substantially change sections 530 and 530.1. The primary goal of the 2008 amendments—and I will come back to them shortly—was to clarify certain provisions, to codify the current state of case law and to fill certain gaps I identified in case law and studies of these provisions.

Let us now move on to the exact content of sections 530 and 530.1. What other rights and correlative obligations are included in these provisions?

Let us start with section 530. It has six subsections.

The first subsection of section 530 indicates that on application by an accused whose language is one of the official languages of Canada, the judge must grant an order directing that the accused be tried before a judge or a judge and jury who speak the official language of the accused, or, if the circumstances warrant, who speak both official languages. The deadlines by which the accused can make such a request are indicated in the first subsection, and the deadlines vary according to the nature of the procedure used to prosecute the offence.

The second subsection of section 530 applies to cases in which the language of the accused is not one of the official languages of Canada. In such a case, the judge may grant an order directing that the accused be tried before a judge or a judge and jury who, in the opinion of the judge, will allow the accused to best give testimony or who, once again, if the circumstances warrant, speak both official languages.

The third paragraph, as amended in 2008, requires that a judge before whom an accused first appears advise them of their right to face trial in the official language of their choice. Before Bill C-13 was passed, only those accused who were not represented by counsel had the right to be advised of this right. The 2008 amendment therefore requires that the judge ensure that all of the accused, whether they are represented or not, be advised of their right to request a trial in the official language of their choice.

The fourth subsection of section 530 concerns the situation of an accused who fails to make a request for a trial in their language before the prescribed deadlines.

The fifth subsection allows for an order indicating that an accused who must undergo their trial before a court that speaks one of the official languages be varied to require them to be judged by a court that speaks both official languages, and vice versa. Therefore, it is possible to vary the initial order.

Finally, the sixth subsection of section 530, added in 2008, indicates that when the co-accused do not speak the same official language and they respectively exercise their right to be judged by a judge who speaks their official language, but that otherwise these co-accused would be tried together, these may constitute circumstances that warrant that an order be granted directing that they be tried before a judge who speaks both official languages.

Before moving on to section 530.1, allow me to mention the addition, in 2008, of section 530.01(1).

This new provision indicates that the prosecutor shall cause the portions of an information or indictment to be translated into the official language of the accused, and to provide it at the earliest possible time on application by the accused.

Before the passage of the new subsection 530.01(1), only the preprinted parts of the forms indicated in part XXVIII of the Criminal Code were given to the accused in both official languages. The sections filled out by the accuser were written and provided to the accused in the language of the person who had filled out the form. Certain courts considered it unfathomable that an accused would not have the same right to obtain the translation, given the importance of these documents. Therefore, they required that they be translated upon request. Some jurisdictions implemented practices to comply with these decisions. The addition of a provision in this matter, through Bill C-13, both standardized these practices and better reflected the status of case law.

Let us now move on to section 530.1.

Section 530.1 outlines the specific rights that may be exercised when an order is granted under section 530. It prescribes the following.

First of all, it indicates that the accused, his counsel, and witnesses have the right to use either official language during the preliminary inquiry and trial.

Second, it indicates that the accused and his counsel may use either official language in any proceedings relating to the preliminary inquiry or trial.

Third, it indicates that any witness may give evidence in either official language during the preliminary inquiry or trial.

Fourthly, it indicates that the accused has the right to have a justice who speaks the official language of the accused or both official languages.

Fifth, it indicates that the accused has the right to have a prosecutor—other than a private prosecutor—who speaks the official language of the accused or both official languages.

Sixth, it indicates that the court shall make interpreters available to assist the accused, his counsel or any witness.

Seventh, it indicates that the record of proceedings during the preliminary inquiry or trial shall include a transcript of everything that was said during those proceedings in the official language in which it was said, as well as a transcript of any interpretation into the other official language of what was said, and any documentary evidence that was tendered during those proceedings in the official language in which it was tendered.

Finally, the eighth item indicates that the court shall make available any trial judgment in the official language of the accused.

Allow me now to briefly explain the context behind the 2008 amendments.

The implementation of the language rights provisions in the Criminal Code had, from time to time, created some legal and practical difficulties, as demonstrated by the case law that had developed over the years. A number of reports and studies by different stakeholders had also confirmed the need to improve and clarify some of the language of trial provisions of the code.

In particular, in November 1995, the Commissioner of Official Languages published a study entitled “The Equitable Use of English and French Before the Courts in Canada”. This study concluded with 13 recommendations for strengthening and advancing language rights in the courts, particularly before criminal courts.

The department's response to that study was to prepare a working paper, and in November 1996, a document prepared by the official languages law section entitled “Towards a Consolidation of Language Rights in the Administration of Justice in Canada” was published and widely distributed. The document responded to the commissioner's recommendations with a number of proposals to be used as a starting point for public consultations. It served as the basis for public consultations, which were held from November 1996 to April 1998.

In May 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Regina v. Beaulac, which related specifically to the language of trial provisions of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court in Beaulac confirmed that there were indeed difficulties inherent in applying and interpreting these provisions. As a result of the court's decision the recommendations were re-examined and substantially modified to reflect the new state of the law. Consultations were held once again on the content of the proposed changes and eventually the legislative proposals made their way into a bill, along with other criminal law-related amendments. The amendments to the language of trial provisions of 2008 were therefore the fruit of a lengthy process involving many different players. Their main goal was to propose workable and balanced solutions to a number of problems that had been identified and to help ensure the effective implementation of the language rights provisions of the Criminal Code.

I will end my speech by inviting you to communicate with the provinces and territories, the heads of court services, provincial heads of criminal prosecutions and any other entity directly involved in implementing these provisions. They will no doubt provide you with important and useful information relating to the study you are currently undertaking.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Robert Doyle.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Doyle, if you could do it within 10 minutes that would be great.

[Robert Doyle, Senior Counsel, Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Department of Justice]

Yes, I can.

I'm here today to describe to you how the provisions under study were implemented on the ground.

Currently, I am the Head of the Executive Secretariat Directorate of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. This position includes the duties of both a federal prosecutor and national secretary of the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Heads of Prosecutions Committee.

Prior to December 2006, which is to say when our service was separated from the Department of Justice and established as an independent organization, I was a special advisor and I held a position that was roughly the equivalent of this one. During the 10 years before that, from 1987 to 1998, I was a defence counsel in Ontario, and my client base was almost entirely made up of francophones. That means that for those 10 years, I was in court almost every day, both before and after the Criminal Code provisions under study came into force. I worked in almost every region in the province, almost always in French, which is the language of the minority in that province.

After being crown prosecutor, I became the national secretary for the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Heads of Prosecutions Committee. This committee includes the heads of Canadian prosecution services. It must be specified that criminal proceedings are under shared jurisdiction. Offences under the Criminal Code, such as murder, offences committed under the influence, theft, rape and sexual assaults, are prosecuted by the provinces, whereas the federal offences are prosecuted by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

This committee includes 12 people: the heads of prosecution for each province, the Director of Criminal Prosecution in Canada and the Director of Military Prosecutions. The committee meets twice a year for two or three days. During these meetings, certain provisions are studied, in light of the problems that come up during practice. Obviously, some of the committee's observations were reflected in the 2008 amendments.

I have a few comments to share with you based on this experience.

I'll start by talking about the hesitation that people feel when they are accused.

A person charged with a criminal offence is understandably very anxious. That person wants the most favourable result, which for that person means an acquittal, or at least a withdrawal or a stay of the charge. That person wants that result to occur quickly and that person wants the best legal help possible to get out of the mess.

Therein lies the first hurdle faced in implementing these provisions. Whether or not an accused from a minority language community is aware of his or her linguistic rights under section 530, these rights are often subsumed to the emergency of avoiding a conviction. If exercising these rights means not availing oneself of the assistance of top counsel because the best do not speak the official language of the accused, then these rights will not be invoked. If exercising these rights means obtaining a later trial or hearing date, then they also may not be invoked, particularly and understandably with respect to obtaining bail. Likewise, if the accused perceives—wrongly, generally—that invoking these rights will somehow annoy or anger the judicial officials, he or she will not strive to assert them.

There's also the arrest process itself, where rights are read to the suspect and a list of counsel is shown, which is a situation that is not technically covered by these provisions. Thus, an accused person might retain unilingual counsel even before subsection 530(3) is applied and the accused is informed by the court of his or her right to trial in his or her language.

The second problem is that of informing the accused of the provisions.

Subsection 530(3) indicates that the accused must be advised of their right to undergo a trial in their language and it is the justice of the peace or the judge of the provincial court who must inform the accused of this right. The 2008 amendments attempted to better define this requirement, but difficulties persist. Ontario serves as an example of this, because in light of what I heard at the table of the heads of prosecution, and in light of the discussions held by the Subcommittee on Official Languages, one can conclude that Ontario is a microcosm of Canada. I will therefore use my experience in Ontario to better illustrate the situation.

Some of Ontario's regions, just like other regions in Canada, are mostly francophone. The court must advise the accused that he has the right to undergo his trial in his official language, but in fact, this notice is not given. In any case, the accused comes before the court, and there is a constant back and forth between both languages. In Moncton, in L'Orignal, in Hawkesbury and in other locations in northern Ontario, judges and prosecutors are all bilingual, as well as most of the members of the defence counsel, to varying degrees. The trial date is then set, and the accused is guaranteed to have their trial in either English or French.

Other regions are mostly anglophone, but there is a significant francophone presence. That's the case in Ottawa and in Sudbury, for example. Justices of the peace are therefore sensitive to their local reality and will usually issue the advisory.

However, some regions are almost exclusively anglophone. That means that the judges don't usually see a lot of francophones come before their court. It happens once or twice a year, or even less. In these circumstances, judges may forget to issue the advisory to a francophone who stands accused, particularly if the accused initially speaks English with relative ease.

It will nonetheless be difficult to predict the consequences of the growing use of video links, which is starting to become quite widespread. Indeed, Alberta is deploying a complete system which will allow the initial appearances to be conducted at the accused's location, particularly if they are detained. Because the system will be centralized, it will be easier to implement a system where a justice of the peace and a prosecutor can speak the language of the defendant.

Finally, the third problem involves informing the judiciary and the bar.

All judges are aware of the provisions relating to language rights in the code. In provinces like Ontario and New Brunswick there's also provincial legislation that buttresses these rights by reinforcing the knowledge in the provisions in the Provincial Offences Act or in the Courts of Justice Act. Nevertheless, when minority language accused appearing before a court are few and far between, or where they're represented by counsel who speak only the majority language, or where, increasingly, accused are unrepresented but speak the majority language fluently, thus not making the judge aware of their minority status, then the judge may not be reminded of the need to inform the accused of his or her rights pursuant to subsection 530(3).

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada, in its policy manual, has a provision that requires our prosecutors—and Ontario and New Brunswick have similar provisions as well—to, if the court forgets, remind the court that the accused should be advised of his or her right to have the trial in the minority language.

The issue of not remembering to give the notice under 530(3) was flagged by the Ontario FLS Bench and Bar Advisory Committee report in 2012, a very extensive report that was written by Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Paul Rouleau and defence counsel Paul Le Vay. They had hearings and they researched the subject for almost two years. It mentioned that problem as well. So despite the 2008 amendments, there still remain situations in those areas where the minority language is virtually absent, both because of the census data and the fact there are just a few people from the minority community who are charged with offences. Because of that, section 530(3) seems to fall between the cracks and there's no notice given.

That, of course, is not entirely the courts' fault because sometimes an accused person—as does Ms. Soublière or myself, and as you'll notice, Mr. Francoeur shortly—doesn't speak English with a French accent or has a very slight French accent, and as a result, it's not obvious that we may require a trial in the French language.

In the end, the wait period for a trial requested under part XVII depends on the local reality. In regions where there is a francophone majority, there is no wait time for a request to have the proceedings held in French. In regions where there is an anglophone majority with a strong francophone presence, such as Ottawa and Sudbury, there are no additional waiting times either. In regions with an anglophone majority and very few francophones, there may be a delay because often they have to bring in people from a bilingual region, including the judge, the crown prosecutor and the clerk in order to hold the proceedings in French. This problem may be exacerbated if the defendant requests a trial by jury, because there are obviously some regions in Canada where there are very few francophone residents who can sit on a jury.

Moreover, the Association des juristes d'expression française de la Colombie-Britannique carried out a fairly exhaustive study in 2006 on how things work in the other provinces as well. This study revealed to what extent requesting a trial by jury in French can cause problems in certain regions of this province. This situation was also mentioned by the heads of prosecution. Two years ago, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General of British Columbia mentioned to the heads of prosecution that people were starting to deliberately request trials by jury in French, knowing that the system might not be able to honour the request.

The adoption of part XVII encouraged judicial administrations to pursue litigants' rights. Therefore, all the provinces have judges who speak the minority language at all levels of the courts. That is the case for all provinces with the exception of one, which made arrangements. Legally, the availability of a francophone crown prosecutor can be guaranteed anywhere in the country. All of the provinces have this ability except Prince Edward Island, who has made arrangements with New Brunswick and our service to provide them with bilingual crown prosecutors if such a request is made.

I will conclude by saying that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada will continue to work with the provinces to ensure that these rights in the context of a trial are respected in the full sense of the word.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That was 12 minutes—close to 10.

Mr. Francoeur, you have 10 minutes. There will be a bell at 4:25 p.m.

[Michel Francoeur, Director and General Counsel, Office of Francophonie, Justice in Official Languages and Legal Dualism, Department of Justice]

Thank you, Mr. Doyle.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee. My name is Michel Francoeur and I am the Director and General Counsel of the Office of Francophonie, Justice and Official Languages and Legal Dualism. I also supervise the lawyers from the Department of Justice who are responsible for the Contraventions Act implementation.

Before going any further, Mr. Chair, I would like to introduce my two colleagues who are here: lawyers Mathieu Langlois and Marie-Claude Gervais. If I do not have the answer to a question that is asked, with your permission, I would consult them. Otherwise, we could provide you with a written response, depending on the circumstances.

That being said, I am here today to give you a general overview of the administrative and financial measures taken by the Department of Justice to support the enforcement of Sections 530 and 530.1.

From the outset, I should point out that due to the sharing of constitutional jurisdictions between the federal government and the provinces, the federal government's role in implementing linguistic provisions in the Criminal Code is limited. While the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over changes made to the Criminal Code and related procedure, legal proceedings under the Criminal Code fall primarily within provincial jurisdiction. In addition, the provinces are responsible for the composition and organization of criminal courts.

This means that in the case of the provisions that you are studying, the provinces must ensure that they have the necessary institutional and human resources within their justice system in order to allow the defendant to stand trial in the language of his or her choice.

That being said, while complying with its responsibilities and within its means, the Department of Justice is working with its provincial and territorial partners in order to support them in enforcing the Criminal Code's language obligations.

The Department of Justice supports the provinces and territories through two initiatives: first, the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Initiative, and second, the Contraventions Act Implementation Fund. The Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Initiative has two components: the financial component which is the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund, and the non-financial component which is collaborative and consultation activities with certain governmental and non-governmental partners.

I would like to say a few words about the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund.

This fund was created to first and foremost meet the objective of improving access to justice services in the minority language and enhancing awareness and understanding of language rights among Canadian citizens and the legal community. It is for this purpose that the Department of Justice developed a training component in order to support people in the justice system who provide services to Canadians in the official language of their choice, particularly in the area of criminal law.

The training component of the fund is there to help people who already work in the justice system to develop and improve their language skills. To date, the support fund has financed professional development for various stakeholders in the justice system, such as provincial crown prosecutors, provincial court clerks, probation officers, and members of the judiciary, amongst others.

Allow me to illustrate with a specific example. In 2010, the creation of the Centre canadien de français juridique, located in Winnipeg, was funded directly by the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund in the area of training. Creating this centre allowed the institutions to consolidate their expertise to offer a broader range of training activities to different players in the judicial systems.

This way, each province and territory can find within their own court system francophones or francophiles who are willing to take specialized language training on legal terminology. These are professionals who are already familiar with the French language. Through the Centre canadien de français juridique, these individuals acquire and maintain their knowledge and skills, and build the necessary confidence to carry out their work in the defendant's official language when a request is made under section 530 and the ones that follow of the Criminal Code.

Moreover, this type of training activity can also be offered to anglophones and anglophiles in the court system of Quebec.

I would like to speak briefly on the second component of the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Initiative. The initiative also includes collaborative and consultation activities that allow the department to work closely with its partners. Within its Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group and its Advisory Committee on Access to Justice in Both Official Languages, the department offers room for dialogue and cooperation in order to bring up any questions, good practices, issues or challenges that affect access to justice in both official languages, including those related to language provisions in the Criminal Code.

I will now say a word or two about the Contraventions Act Implementation Fund. The federal Contraventions Act also falls within the scope of the objective of access to justice in both official languages. It is in this context that the department must also ensure compliance with the Criminal Code's language provisions.

The contraventions scheme is an alternative to the summary proceedings laid out in part XXVII of the Criminal Code for proceedings of federal offences referred to as regulatory. The federal contraventions scheme is implemented through the provincial criminal processes, which are incorporated by reference in federal law, as well as through agreements signed with the provinces or certain municipalities.

While the federal government uses existing provincial offences schemes to prosecute federal contraventions, it must ensure that all judicial and extrajudicial activities or services relating to federal contraventions are in accordance with the language rights of Canadians contained in section 20 of the charter, in section 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code, and part 4 of the Official Languages Act.

The Contraventions Act fund, which is a transfer payment, has been precisely designed to provide funding to provinces that have signed agreements with the Department of Justice, ensuring that necessary measures are taken to guarantee those language rights for persons who are prosecuted for contraventions of federal statutes or regulations. The fund supports a range of measures that typically include the hiring of bilingual judicial and extrajudicial court personnel, language training, bilingual signage and documentation, as well as costs incurred by provinces to manage and report on these measures to the Department of Justice.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is the end of my presentation.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I will be pleased to answer any questions from the members of your committee, subject to the limits laid out by Ms. Soublière regarding our respective mandates.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those excellent presentations.

We have three or four questioners. Our first questioner is Mr. Mai from the New Democratic Party.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to hold you to five minutes on this one.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Sure, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today and for having informed us so well about the enforcement and interpretation of the law.

Mr. Francoeur, if I am not mistaken, you look after verifying enforcement. Do you have statistics or other information on recent practices in the provinces regarding accessibility in both languages?

[Michel Francoeur]

We do not have such statistics. As far as we know, very few provinces gather such statistics. However, since the implementation is carried out by the provinces, both by the crown prosecutors and by the organization and administration of the courts, if such statistics exist, you will be able to find them with our colleagues in the provinces.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

All right.

Sometimes in the field we hear that criminal lawyers often have a hard time. You spoke about court interpreters among others.

What concrete measures have been put in place to ensure that court interpreters meet expectations?

[Michel Francoeur]

To my knowledge, that does not fall under our program.

Mr. Doyle could perhaps provide you with information on that subject.

[Robert Doyle]

Yes, this problem was raised recently in 2012 before the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Heads of Prosecutions Committee. The acuity of the problem depends on what region of Canada you live in. Indeed, in certain provinces such as the Prairies, British Columbia, Ontario and the Maritimes, the accreditation systems for interpreters in both official languages meet the demand quite well. A problem arises when it comes to other languages, however, we are not here to discuss that.

Unfortunately, accreditation of interpreters is not governed centrally according to national standards. As a general rule, we try to follow the program put into place by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General at the end of 1970s, which intended to train and accredit interpreters and ensure they maintained their accreditation in provinces where French was the minority language. Furthermore, very few complaints were made about this program.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Were complaints or questions raised concerning the transcription of the defendant's words said in French in particular?

[Robert Doyle]

Complaints about transcription began when we started using computer systems. There were no longer any stenographers in the room. The clerk was simply pressing the buttons to record, pause and stop, which meant that we sometimes lost parts of the proceedings.

However, these problems seem to be disappearing as technology evolves.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

When did this change take place?

[Robert Doyle]

Each province introduced an automatic recording system as they built new courthouses. This took place mostly during the 1980s and the 1990s. I sometimes participate in meetings of the Association of Canadian Court Administrators, and from what I have seen, this doesn't seem to be a problem today.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I'd like to come back to Mr. Francoeur.

You spoke about the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund. Does the money dedicated to this fund come from the federal government?

[Michel Francoeur]

Yes.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Can you tell us how this fund has evolved over the last years? Has it increased or decreased? Is it sufficient?

[Michel Francoeur]

Are you asking if the amounts allocated to the fund have increased?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Yes. My question is about the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund, which is funded by the federal government.

[Michel Francoeur]

Am I understanding that you are talking about the funds for the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

That's right.