Official Languages Committee on May 8th, 2008

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, we've talked a lot about the situation of the minority francophone community in Canada.

Can English-speaking Quebec citizens be served in English in the law courts? I'd like to know whether something is being done in that area.

[Graham Fraser]

I'll ask Ms. Tremblay to give you some details on that. For our part, based on the information we've gathered, the federal courts in Quebec pose no problem in that regard. However, there has been a certain amount of discomfort with the provincial courts.

Do you want to provide more details?

[Johanne Tremblay]

In the superior courts in Quebec, the level of bilingualism appears to be adequate. Based on the information we've been able to gather, the same isn't true of provincial court judges.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to share my time with Ms. Freeman.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I'd like Ms. Aucoin, whom I interrupted earlier, to complete her answer on the evaluation of legal or linguistic competency. Had you finished your remarks?

[Louise Aucoin]

The appointment of judges poses a systemic problem. The system should be changed and objective criteria established to ensure that the superior courts are sufficiently bilingual. To ensure legal competency, the bar imposes a 10-year criterion in order to be eligible. As for language competency in the superior courts, objective criteria must become systemic. They could appear on a form or something like that.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

What could be done about the structure of judicial appointment committees? We're trying to find a solution. Sixteen committees have been established to appoint judges across Canada. Surely there's a way to improve the ability of members who evaluate candidates. Do you have anything to suggest?

When people appear in court, are they systematically told that they have the right to a trial in either language? Is that stated clearly? In the rest of the country, are all citizens who appear really informed that it's possible for them to undergo their trial in their language?

[Louise Aucoin]

Members of lawyers associations could sit on the appointment committees. For example, it was considered important that a police officer sit on those committees. If we had members of lawyers associations, that would ensure a presence in that regard.

As to whether information is given to litigants, section 530 provides that they have that right solely if they are not represented by counsel. However, the act is being amended so that judges can inform litigants.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I think that Mr. Fraser, who appeared on the subject of Bill C-23, could add to that.

Do you have anything to add?

[Graham Fraser]

The purpose of amending the act is to remedy that problem. If I understand correctly, that's Bill C-13. I don't know if it changed between Bill C-23 and the last version of Bill C-13, but it requires that informations be—

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

[Inaudible - Editor] isn't represented by counsel. But we want an amendment to be made so that it's done.

[Graham Fraser]

It would be amended so that everyone is informed of that right.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

So that everyone is warned with the... But it died on the Order Paper, because there was a—

[Johanne Tremblay]

No, it's before the Senate now.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

It's before the Senate?

[Johanne Tremblay]

Yes, but it's a criminal matter. We shouldn't forget civil trials either. The discourse contines. There is this obligation to inform, but there's the entire component of civil trials. In Ontario, Franco-Ontarians have the right to be heard in the courts in the designated regions—we mentioned this—which concerns 90% of the population. In this civil context, there isn't this obligation of active offer. Litigants thus aren't necessarily informed of their rights. Under their code of ethics, lawyers now have this obligation to inform their clients, but it isn't—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Ms. Freeman.

We now turn to Monsieur Michael Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Merci.

I note that all of the witnesses, I believe, with the exception, of course, of the public servants from the Department of Justice, were of the view that the next candidate or next appointment to the Supreme Court should be bilingual. I just want to put it on the record that John Major, one of the past justices of the Supreme Court, who retired in 2005, indicated in reports today that he felt it was not a requirement. I find it interesting that there are differing points of view on this.

I just wanted to put that on the record.

One of the things I wanted to ask—

[Graham Fraser]

Can I respond to that?

I'm not sure that the opinion of a unilingual anglophone judge should necessarily be the determining opinion as to the importance of knowledge of both languages. What former Justice Major said was that he found the interpretation system perfectly adequate, and he praised it. I'm not sure if the evaluation of a unilingual anglophone is what you should rely on as to whether interpretation is the appropriate mechanism for a judge to understand the case being presented before him. We've had quite eloquent testimony here as to some of the problems that can arise despite the talent of the interpreters, who I see working behind the glass here.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I don't disagree with you, Commissioner, but I just wanted to put that on the record, because I did notice it in newspaper reports today.

[Graham Fraser]

Well, it leapt out at my breakfast table too.

[Michel Doucet]

Can I respond to that also?

I suggest that it might be interesting for you to try to listen to a translation in English when somebody is pleading in French to see what you would get out of it. Or, if someone is pleading in English, listen to the French version if you're bilingual, and you'll see what you can get out of it.

Basically, I agree with the commissioner, in that I don't believe a unilingual judge is able to appreciate—

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I just wanted to get it on the record.

I wanted a ask a question of you, Michel, in your role as a professor in the faculty of law at the University of Moncton. In the entrance requirements for the law school, do you require students to have knowledge of both official languages? The second part of my question is, do you require that students have knowledge of both official languages to graduate with a law degree?

[Michel Doucet]

First of all, it's a French law school; but second, it's impossible to study the common law if you're not bilingual. So all of our students at the law faculty, once they graduate, francophones and anglophones—because we don't only accept francophones, as there are also a lot of anglophones from every province in Canada, who are perfectly bilingual. As for the francophones, they have to read the decisions of the court and the case books in English; so for them, it's an impossibility to study the common law by being unilingual French. Maybe one or two can do it, but the majority—I'd say about 98% to 99%—of our students who graduate are bilingual.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

So it is an entrance requirement to know both official languages?