Official Languages Committee on May 8th, 2008

[Michel Doucet]

I can't state an opinion on them.

[Louise Aucoin]

I think they are organized more or less satisfactorily. Sometimes they bring in judges from another province to hear a case. They manage.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

So it's still possible to be heard without being understood.

This is 2008 and we still don't evaluate the comprehension and subtlety of the second language of future judges by means of an examination. Can you suggest to us parliamentarians any amendments to an act so that francophones are finally respected and have before them not a judge who thinks he understands French, but one who will in fact respect the person and render a fair and equitable judgment?

[Graham Fraser]

I think the public service gives you a model for that. It's not a perfect model: improvements can still be made to it.

In another connection, I know that specialized French second-language courses are provided for judges or potential judges who have already achieved a certain level of French. I know that one specialized school in Quebec City offers an intensive specialized course for judges wishing to develop their French. For these institutions, we're not starting from scratch.

If we have a qualification, classification and examination system, there have to be training institutions. We can't suddenly decree that those who didn't plan for that in their youth are excluded from the process or have no opportunity to become judges.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Nadeau.

Now we'll continue with Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to welcome our guests this morning.

Listening to the testimony, I think this is becoming troubling in one sense. Mr. Doucet, when you talked about from "9 to 0", I thought you were talking about a Canadiens hockey game. I didn't really think that the Supreme Court had nine justices. However, the expression "9 to 0" meant there were nine judges and that, when they all shared the same opinion, there were fewer problems. Except that, when the score is five to four, it's a close game that could go into overtime, and then you said that the fifth point was due to the fact that the judge hadn't understood the argument, since you didn't understand your own argument when you listened to the interpretation, with all the respect you have for interpreters.

That's troubling. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort in Canada. It is the last stage of the justice process for Canadians. For those who are judged, it's their future that can be ruined. That's why we have a justice system.

What we're hearing from you this morning is appalling. I'm anxious to hear you on the subject. I wouldn't have liked to be your client, even though you are a good lawyer. You won a lot of cases in the Supreme Court with colleagues, but when you tell me about the interpretation service you received in the Supreme Court in a specific case, I think someone didn't have any luck in court that day.

I would like to hear you on that subject.

[Michel Doucet]

I would simply like to point out that the example I gave occurred at a time when three judges weren't bilingual. I didn't say those judges hadn't understood. I simply explained that I subsequently wondered about the situation. When the ratio was five judges to four, I wondered whether the situation would have been different if I had pleaded my case in English.

I think it's legitimate to ask yourself that question when translation is used. I myself have had to make submissions outside Canada where I had to listen through translation and where I sometimes lost the thread of the debate that was taking place. So I couldn't exactly follow what was being said. I'm simply saying that I asked myself the question.

The situation at the Supreme Court has vastly improved since that time, but there are still problems. It must be ensured that all the judges are in fact bilingual.

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

But, on the other hand, it's not up to a judge to explain—I'm trying to make myself understood—to another judge what the witness meant to say. I think that should be said directly to the judge, not interpreted by another judge who thinks he understood.

No, no, you didn't understand him correctly, because that's not what he meant. As for what he meant, well, he's not there anymore to explain it. I think that's a big problem.

[Michel Doucet]

That's often the problem: after the translation, if the judge wants clarification and to ask the lawyer a question, in the time it takes to get the translation and to be able to ask the question, they've already moved on to something else.

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

But the problem is that, if a judge asks another judge for an explanation, because he misunderstood, it's possible he may turn to a judge who has already formed an opinion. I don't mean that he would be nasty, but perhaps he wouldn't say everything the first judge would need to hear.

In that way, the accused isn't appearing before a court that is fair to him.

[Graham Fraser]

I would like to add another point to the issue. We live in this bijural system in which the Supreme Court is called upon to make decisions, to decide arguments, some of which are conducted in French. The entire concept is debated in French in a legal system that is not necessarily a common law system, in a country where there has been a language debate for 40 years that has profound legal implications. So it's not through interpretation that we're necessarily going to understand all the aspects of the debate prior to a case being brought before the Supreme Court.

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

Mr. Chairman, there is an important question that we put to the deputy ministers last week or early this week.

You say that the language debate has been going on for 40 years, but I believe instead that it's been going on for 400 years. So as regards the current debate, how many Supreme Court judges are there who are, for example, French-speaking and who don't speak English? Has a completely francophone judge ever been appointed to the Supreme Court? From your knowledge, do you know of a unilingual francophone who's previously been appointed to the Supreme Court?

[Graham Fraser]

As far as I know, no.

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

Mr. Doucet.

[Michel Doucet]

I've already asked myself the question, and the answer is no.

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

Ms. Aucoin.

[Louise Aucoin]

It's the same thing.

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

Mr. Tremblay.

[Marc Tremblay, General Counsel and Director, Official Languages Law Group, Department of Justice]

We keep no data on the subject, on either anglophones or francophones.

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

Mr. Tremblay, you work at the Department of Justice. Can you find that information and send it to the committee?

[Marc Tremblay]

We aren't able to do those kinds of searches. You have to talk to the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs.

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

We should ask other witnesses from the Department of Justice to provide those figures to us.

[Marc Tremblay]

They aren't at the Department of Justice, but at the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs.

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

All right.

Mr. Fraser, would it be possible to conduct a study to determine how many individuals in Canada could be appointed? In Saskatchewan, are there any lawyers who speak both languages? They say there's only one in that province.

[Louise Aucoin]

I know a number. We have an association of French-speaking lawyers in Saskatchewan.