Official Languages Committee on Oct. 20th, 2016

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Boileau.

I am very glad to meet you. You are the French Language Services Commissioner of Ontario, and I commend you for that.

I am from Quebec, so this really isn't a problem for me. Just about everyone speaks French in Quebec. In fact, people in Quebec often say that they are practically the only francophones in Canada. Here, though, we have proof to the contrary.

Some of the issues you talked about shocked me. The first is that it's more expensive for someone in Ontario to have a trial in French than in English. Why is that the case? Does it have to do with translators?

[François Boileau]

No. Ontario has a unique element.

Sections 125 and 126 of Ontario's Courts of Justice Act stipulate that English and French are the official languages of the province's courts. In theory, then, a francophone wanting their trial to be held in French can have such a trial in any of Ontario's courts, be it the Superior Court of Justice or the Court of Appeal.

In practice, however, obtaining a trial in French can take longer. If it's due to a lack of bilingual judges, it's more costly because cases have to be postponed. Counsel may be there, but if the opposing party isn't ready, the reason can be a lack of bilingual judges or the fact that the other party didn't show up to court with their own interpreters.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

I see.

[François Boileau]

Oftentimes, it's not the francophones needing interpreters but, rather, the other party. In bilingual proceedings, the English-speaking party often needs an interpreter. They show up in court and request an interpreter if the service hasn't already been provided for as part of the proceedings. The judge will then say that they are ready to proceed because they understand French and English, but if one of the parties does not understand French and needs the services of an interpreter, the case has to be postponed.

Sometimes the problems are related to the court office itself. Today, here in Ottawa, the national capital region, a pilot project is in place; it's one previously recommended by my office. When you walk in to the Ottawa courthouse, you receive assistance immediately. Your initial contact can take place in French. What's important is to send the francophone subject to the court's jurisdiction a clear message that they can request French-language services the first time they are in contact with the courthouse. When they deal with the court office, individuals are sometimes told,

“Well, it would be so much easier if you were to proceed in English.”

This of course sends a message to litigants.

We must remember that litigants increasingly represent themselves, especially in cases that are probably very important to them, but may be less important in the legal system.

Since citizens are representing themselves more and more, it is all the more important to let them know that they can represent themselves in French, and that this will not penalize them.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

That is why it is more costly.

[François Boileau]

Yes, because it takes longer. In those cases, it often becomes a matter of representation by the lawyers.

These are the conclusions of the Federal Judicial Advisory Committee and of the Bar regarding services in French. The committee was chaired by Honourable Judge Paul Rouleau and counsellor Paul Le Vay, who was at the time president of the Association des juristes d'expression française of Ontario.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lefebvre, you have the floor.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Boileau, welcome. I am very pleased to see you. I would like to congratulate you on the good work you do. You have been working extremely hard for several years. You are the first French Language Services Commissioner of Ontario.

[François Boileau]

I am the best commissioner the province of Ontario has ever had...

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I agree with you entirely.

[François Boileau]

... and also the worst, but that is another story.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

The committee received people from Manitoba and New Brunswick who spoke to us about their initiative to increase francophone immigration in their provinces. As you know, Manitoba does excellent work, as does New Brunswick. That province has set targets and has in fact surpassed them.

I know that several federal-provincial agreements set a yearly objective of 5% for new francophone immigrants, but I know that the real percentage is less than 2%. What could the federal government do to support the province so that it reaches this 5% objective?

[François Boileau]

I will in fact be speaking about this later in another statement on immigration. That was the plan, but I will be pleased to speak about it right now.

A few years ago, Commissioner Fraser and myself issued a joint report on a problematic situation like the one you have just raised. What can we do to ensure that immigrants are well-informed about the situation here before they leave their country? We sell them a completely bilingual country, but when they arrive in your area, in Sudbury, that is not quite the case.

They have to be well informed and, especially, we have to take charge of them as soon as they get here. If they are guided by an anglophone organization, all of the services they receive will be in English, whereas these immigrants often need integration and retention services. We have to keep them here, particularly in your region. That is where the federal government can play a greater role by developing partnerships with francophone organizations. They should not be organizations that claim to be bilingual only to obtain a mandate from the federal government. Organizations really have to take charge of francophone immigrants and direct them toward services in French.

Let me be clear; we want newcomers to Ontario to learn English also; that is important. They have to be able to participate fully in society in Ontario. These people need services and need to be supported. The federal government and the Government of Ontario have to put in place recruitment, integration, retention and training strategies for these newcomers.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

I want to talk about the Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction, the OLEP. You mentioned that this extremely important program is part of the roadmap and the new action plan.

When it comes to early childhood programs, the offer is not sufficient to meet the demand. At this time, the OLEP does not fund that type of program. If the OLEP were improved, how could earlier childhood education programs benefit?

[François Boileau]

It is important to consider that at the constitutional level, we made spectacular gains in 1982 thanks to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly section 23. This section concerns the elementary and secondary levels, but education does not start and stop there. There is a learning continuum.

The OLEP was created under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and concerns elementary and secondary education. Nevertheless, it is essential that we begin with early childhood, especially when the rate of exogamous couples is as high as it is here in Ontario. Over 60% of francophone couples in Ontario are exogamous couples.

If we support the children of these families from early childhood on, we are sending an important signal that it is possible to have an education in French and that we can send children for their first year of schooling to a French school. It is not a panacea, but it would certainly help. It can't hurt. That is why it is important to consider early childhood education programs in a learning continuum.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Boileau.

Mr. Choquette, you have the floor.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Commissioner, I thank you for being here with us today.

I want to begin by reminding you of the huge amount of work Yvon Godin did regarding bilingualism and the judges of the Supreme Court. As you know, I am taking up the torch by presenting a bill so that this will be enshrined in a law. I don't know what you think of that. Is a law requiring that Supreme Court judges be bilingual needed, or is current policy in this regard sufficient?

[François Boileau]

Could the current policy change if we had a change in government? Possibly. Of course, I am somewhat partial since I am the French Language Services Commissioner for Ontario. It is my job to ensure that language rights enjoy better protection. So the question holds the answer, to some degree. Yes, of course, a law would provide better protection and ensure the permanence of that bilingualism.

I read an argument wherein it was claimed that it is difficult to find bilingual judges. I even heard a former Newfoundland and Labrador attorney put forward such an argument. A judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is a court of appeal, has just been appointed and is bilingual, which is very good. This shows that there is a way to find quality jurists who understand both official languages and will be able to follow a trial or a hearing in both languages.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

In this regard, I would like us to discuss the 2013 report on access to justice in superior courts, on which you collaborated with Commissioner Fraser. In it you made several recommendations; one of them was that the highest instances of the federal and provincial governments discuss the number of bilingual judges needed, and ensure that the skills of these bilingual judges are subsequently assessed. Currently, there is a self-evaluation.

[François Boileau]

The evaluation is not done after, but before.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Yes. That is what I meant.

[François Boileau]

It is important to point that out.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I understand.

Can you give me more details on this? Why has it not already been implemented? What is happening, where are things bogging down, and what must we do to have things move forward?

[François Boileau]

The Government of Ontario had answered that it was ready to collaborate with the federal government. The Attorney General of Ontario, the Honourable Madeleine Meilleur, had sent a letter saying that. She stated that she agreed with the conclusions of the joint report and was willing to cooperate with her federal counterpart. However, as we are speaking here about judges who are appointed by the federal government, the initiative belongs to the Attorney General of Canada. At the time we were in fact given a polite answer which consisted basically in saying that things were going well.

We were not satisfied with that answer, but I now hope that with the current government, the attitude to this file will be different. We hope that the conclusion of our joint report will be looked at so that the needs of each province are better understood and that there is a common vision of what a bilingual judge is. That vision can in fact vary, both at the federal and provincial levels.

In this regard, we would like to see harmonization and the participation of the legal community, including the francophone legal community in the provinces. This would allow us to determine that in a given region we need designated positions, whereas in other regions we would need to increase the number of judges. It would be up to the provinces to determine those needs, together with the chief justices of their courts. We would like to see memoranda of understanding between the federal and provincial governments to ensure that the process is launched.

I know also that my New Brunswick colleague, Katherine d'Entremont, had at the time received a very favourable reply from her government. What had to be done was precisely that the federal government take the initiative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Boileau.

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor.