Official Languages Committee on May 8th, 2008

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

You say you don't work there, but you like to answer certain questions. We see that Nova Scotia has just appointed two unilingual judges to positions previously occupied by two bilingual judges. As Mr. Doucet said, we're losing two-thirds of the opportunities to be served in French in court. We're losing the chance to be judged in our language. That makes me think of when you try to reach the government by telephone, and you're told to press 1 for English and 2 for French. Pressing 1 for English gives you access to immediate service, whereas, if you press 2 for service in French, you wait for half an hour or two hours. Isn't this the same thing? We're no longer talking about an hour or two, but we can wait six months for justice to be done in our language. Justice should be accessible immediately, not in six months.

[Marc Tremblay]

Indeed, the question you're raising directly can't be put to me. However, I'm going to take the opportunity to tell you about things I can talk to you about, as I did to clarify the comments of today's guests, who in some respects didn't draw the necessary distinctions between levels of courts.

You say you want to talk about superior courts, and that's entirely all right. However, regardless of the court concerned, what hasn't been said today is that, if there is a delay, under the Criminal Code, in the case of a hearing that must be conducted in the language of the accused—because it's the language of the accused, pursuant to sections 530 and 530.1—or if the judge does not have competence or is absent, or if no one can give effect to the right, recourse is provided for in the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court was very clear on this point in Beaulac: there would be a stay of proceedings, release of the accused—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Quite often in that case, people give up and decide to proceed in English. At that point, you don't receive any complaints. You were quick to say that you had only received one complaint in 10 years. How many complaints have you received from anglophones in 10 years?

[Marc Tremblay]

Pardon me?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

How many complaints?

[Marc Tremblay]

I've received one in 10 years.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

All right.

Was it an anglophone who said he couldn't be served in his language?

[Marc Tremblay]

He was a francophone in that case.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

All right.

As we say in English, I rest my case on that one.

[Marc Tremblay]

With respect, Mr. Godin, I believe that it's a bit premature to draw grand conclusions on the basis of one complaint.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

It isn't premature. What happens is that judicial positions should be granted to individuals who know both languages, and I see that Stephen Harper's Conservative government doesn't have the will to say it will respect the country's two languages, English and French, and to make an appointment to the Supreme Court that respects the two official languages. That's where we're headed. At least that's my opinion. Perhaps I'm wrong. I think that, if we talk to people and conduct a survey to determine how they would like to be served, they'll definitely say, with regard to justice, that they would like to be served in the language of their choice.

[Marc Tremblay]

With your permission, I'll provide some additional information on one final point. It's the government's purpose in Bill C-13 to ensure that rights are publicized as widely as possible, by making sure that it informs all accuseds, whether they are represented or not, of their rights under the Criminal Code. We hear these remarks. We're not saying that there isn't any room for certain improvements in the justice system in Canada. What I'm saying is that we have to ensure that we clearly understand the necessary nuances based on the court levels, the type of proceeding and the constitutional responsibilities that apply to each. I can't talk to you about judicial appointments; that's not my responsibility, but, in the areas of federal jurisdiction, the measures that can be taken have largely been taken. We're still working actively to lower any remaining barriers, even beyond our areas of jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Godin. You'll have the opportunity to come back to this.

However, I would like to recall that the judiciary is an independent branch and, as such, is independent of the Department of Justice. All committee members are aware of that.

We'll now begin the third round. We'll start with Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to talk about courses given by the Department of Justice, but about courses. I especially want to announce to you, Mr. Chairman, that I will be tabling a motion to request that the Standing Committee on Official Languages recommend that justices appointed to the Supreme Court be bilingual. I will eventually table a private bill to make the necessary changes to ensure that we have bilingualism. When a court is the court of last resort, that's where it happens. It's like in hockey. When the puck goes by the goaltender, you can no longer stop it: it's gone in; it's over. So you have to be subtle. These are important technical and legal concepts. If people aren't able to make themselves understood in their language, I'm sorry, but they get the feeling they are second-class citizens. There has to be justice—isn't that true, Mr. Tremblay?—there has to be the appearance of justice. So it's necessary that that appearance of justice also take on its full force.

What also concerns me is that we unfortunately always get the feeling that bilingualism is a francophone who speaks English. When there are eight bilingual individuals and one anglophone and everybody is speaking English, that's nice, that's fine, but personally that's a problem for me. Everyone agrees that there is a problem of perception, that there is a double standard when you find yourself in superior courts where the judge has trouble communicating, or you're unable to get judges who allow you to be heard.

I'd simply like to ask you whether you get the feeling that, even though there are stays of proceedings in the Criminal Code and elements that make it possible to postpone a case, very often people need to be heard, and if you aren't on the same footing as people who can make themselves understood immediately in English, there's somehow a certain injustice. Even if you sweep the dust under the carpet by saying that that will come one day, ultimately, it's as though we were saying to ourselves that we'll stop at the street corner and wait for an RCMP officer for two more hours because we want to be served in French.

What do you think of what I've just told you, Commissioner, and then Mr. Doucet?

[Graham Fraser]

Very briefly, there is an old saying in English that goes:

justice delayed is justice denied.

This is a principle that has been endorsed a number of times by Canadian courts. The right to have a case heard was recently reinforced in Ontario by the decision in the Belende case. I think the argument you raise is very legitimate.

[Michel Doucet]

I would simply like to add that there is always the psychological aspect for the litigant in that kind of situation. Mr. Tremblay said that there weren't any complaints. I know very well that, last week, I could have filed a complaint concerning a federal court. However, the client too stands before an imposing, large structure, and he doesn't want to file a complaint. He wants to proceed in court by saying that he doesn't want to make any waves.

As regards the other aspect, I understand it very well, and I have an enormous amount of respect for the amendments made to the Criminal Code to make access to justice in French easier. However, when someone is in criminal court, very often, with regard to the language issue, unless someone explains it to us very well and it's immediately accessible, we don't dare exercise that right for fear of offending the court.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

That's a good argument.

[Louise Aucoin]

There's the psychological aspect, but there's also the financial aspect. We know that, if ever the order is to start over, that costs quite a lot more. All that reduces access to justice.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I'm speaking on behalf of my party. I'm the official languages critic, and I can assure you of our full support in this regard.

I'm pleased to see that we had an action plan that worked, particularly for the Access to Justice Support Fund. Unfortunately, it's not in the budget, so we don't know whether there are any envelopes for the future.

However, I agree; I like the idea of a support fund. However, don't you think it would also be necessary for access to justice to have a court challenges program that would enable us to ensure, for the same psychological reasons, that people are able to know that justice will be done? They don't always have the financial capability to carry it through to the end. A right shouldn't be based on the thickness of one's wallet.

[Graham Fraser]

I'm going to answer very briefly. I intervened before the courts in the case brought by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne on the matter of the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program. That was a debate with the government before the courts. I'm not going to repeat all the arguments that we raised in court, but I'm going to hand over to Mr. Doucet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Please be very brief.

[Michel Doucet]

I'm the lawyer for the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

All right. Thank you.

[Louise Aucoin]

It's thanks to the Court Challenges Program that we have more services in French. We need only think of our schools in Nova Scotia, Manitoba and elsewhere.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Ms. Aucoin.

We'll now continue with Mr. Nadeau, from the Bloc Québécois.