Thank you, Renée.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, first off, I think it is important to note that on May 27, 2013, around 10 months ago, I appeared before this committee with my colleague Ms. Soublière. We provided an overview of the administrative and financial measures taken by the Department of Justice to support the implementation of the provisions being studied, as well as the provisions that existed at the time of the amendments. I will briefly discuss these measures again later. I will also be able to give you more specific information about the measures taken, notably through subsidies and contributions.
First of all, it is important to remember that because of the division of legislative authority between the federal and provincial governments, the federal government has a limited role in the implementation of Criminal Code provisions. While the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over amendments made to the Criminal Code, something Ms. Soublière discussed earlier, and over criminal procedure, the provinces are primarily responsible for prosecutions under the Criminal Code.
However, I would like to mention one difference. In the territories, criminal prosecutions are undertaken by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. My colleague Mr. Doyle can speak to you about that later, if necessary.
The provinces and territories are responsible for the composition and organization of their criminal courts. This means that under the provisions currently being studied, the provinces must ensure that they have the institutional and human resources necessary within their justice system to allow defendants to face trial in the official language of their choice.
That said, working within its jurisdiction and within its means, the Department of Justice works with its provincial and territorial partners in order to support the implementation of linguistic obligations required by the Criminal Code.
The Department of Justice supports the provinces and territories through two initiatives: the access to justice in both official languages initiative and the Contraventions Act Fund.
The first initiative consists of two parts. The first part is financial. It is the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund, which has a funding envelope of around $40 million and was renewed as part of the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018. The second part is non-financial. It consists of collaborative activities and consultation with our governmental and non-governmental partners.
I would like to add something about the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund. The 2013-18 roadmap, which was approved by the government and the Treasury Board in December, has three pillars: education, immigration and communities. In the area of justice, this fund is part of the roadmap, and its objective is to improve access to justice services in the minority language, but also to improve Canadian citizens' and legal communities' understanding of linguistic rights.
As an example, as part of the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund, the Department of Justice set up a training program to help people working in the justice system 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 of the justice system, including provincial crown prosecutors, provincial court clerks, probation officers, and members of the judiciary, among others.
One example of the training component of projects supported by this fund can be found in the applied language training program for provincially appointed judges sponsored by the Canadian Council of Chief Judges under the leadership of the chief justice of the Provincial Court of New Brunswick.
In addition to its financial contribution from the support fund, Justice has also played a role in the development of this program. Since 2010, for the four past years, Justice has worked with the Provincial Court of New Brunswick in the development of this program, including the development of teaching tools and the approach centred on real cases, moot courts, if you wish.
Since the rollout of this initiative in 2011, approximately 120 judges have attended the applied language training program.
Another concrete example of a project resulting from the fund is the establishment, in 2010, of the Centre canadien de français juridique or CCFJ, based in Winnipeg. The establishment of this organization allowed us to strengthen our institutional capacity to offer a larger range of training activities to various players within the legal system.
In this way, each province and territory can find francophone or francophile members within its legal system who are willing to take on specialized linguistic training in legal terminology. These are professionals who already have an understanding of French and who, through the Centre canadien de français juridique, can acquire and maintain knowledge and skills. They also build the confidence necessary to carry out their duties in the official language of the defendant when the defendant makes such a request as per section 530 and following of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, we have undertaken discussions to see if the same type of training activity could be offered to anglophone and anglophile members of the legal system in Quebec.
Then, there is the website jurisource.ca, created by the Association of French Speaking Jurists of Ontario, or AJEFO, and funded through our initiative. It was launched in the winter of 2013 for legal professionals working in official language minority communities. It brings together a variety of resources intended to help the justice system and its members offer legal services in both official languages.
I would now like to speak briefly about the collaboration and consultation activities involving the provinces and territories as well as non-governmental organizations.
For several years, there has been a federal-provincial-territorial working group, as well as an access to justice advisory committee, which have allowed for dialogue and collaboration. In these venues, one can raise questions, and discuss best practices, issues and challenges related to access to justice, including those that fall under the provisions of the Criminal Code.
There is also an advisory group that works with non-governmental organizations, notably but not exclusively with associations of French-speaking jurists. There is also the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law.
I will now speak about what is called the Contraventions Act Fund, which was created to support the application of that federal law. Another objective of the fund is to provide better access to justice in both official languages. Then, there is the implementation of the federal ticketing scheme, which requires the department to ensure that the linguistic provisions of the Criminal Code are respected. The system set out by the Contraventions Act is an alternative to the summary conviction procedure set out in the Criminal Code for the prosecution of so-called federal regulatory offences. The goal is to simplify and streamline procedures, so as to make them less costly than if they had been undertaken under the Criminal Code system. Under that system, the procedure would in fact be more complicated, even if it were a summary conviction procedure as per part XXVII of the Criminal Code. It is important to know that the federal ticketing scheme is applied through provincial criminal systems, which are incorporated by reference into federal law, or by agreements signed with the provinces.
In 2001, in the case, Commissioner of Official Languages v. Canada, the Federal Court was asked to clarify the extent of language rights applicable to federal contraventions or statutory infractions. The case involved Ontario, the first province to implement the Contraventions Act. Today, that decision is the only decision on this issue.
In that judgment the court ruled that the federal government may use provincial offence schemes to prosecute federal contraventions, but in doing so it must ensure that all judicial activities and extrajudicial activities, those out of the courtroom, and the calibre of any services to the public in the courthouse or outside the courthouse relating to those federal contraventions, be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code and the Official Languages Act. In other words, it's okay for Parliament to incorporate the provincial schemes into federal law, but it doesn't take away the duty of the federal government to ensure that the provinces, in the prosecution of the federal contraventions, respect or implement those language provisions of the Criminal Code and the federal Official Languages Act.
It's on that basis the contravention fund was created. It's a fund of $45 million over five years, approximately $9 million per year, funds which are allocated to the provinces that have an agreement with the federal government to implement or to prosecute the federal contraventions. Seven provinces and one municipality have signed such agreements. Five of them are receiving financial resources from that fund. Two of them, Ontario and Quebec, did not ask for funding.