Official Languages Committee on March 7th, 2017

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

You have 30 seconds.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

I'll need more than 30 seconds!

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Grammond, are you aware of the recent changes made by the federal government in the judicial appointment process?

[Prof. Sébastien Grammond]

Yes. We're not talking about Supreme Court judges, but about superior court and appeal court judges. Is that correct?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Regardless, we don't have any time left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Grammond, for being with us today.

It's a very specific issue. I understand that you want us to talk about the Supreme Court and not the judicial appointment process. Is that correct?

[Prof. Sébastien Grammond]

My research mainly concerned the Supreme Court.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Earlier, you mentioned that we should ask the Supreme Court to make clarifications. Were you talking about the decision in the Justice Nadon case?

[Prof. Sébastien Grammond]

Yes, exactly.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

What would you have clarified, specifically?

[Prof. Sébastien Grammond]

It must be determined whether sections 41 and 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 prevent Parliament from adopting legislation that requires Supreme Court judges to be bilingual.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

What should we, as parliamentarians, do to ask for a clarification?

[Prof. Sébastien Grammond]

It's a power given to the federal government. You must suggest that cabinet pass an order that refers the question to the Supreme Court.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Okay.

You spoke earlier about possible interpretation errors, despite all the excellent work done by interpreters. You even said the legislation could be understood differently in English and French, since the words don't have exactly the same meaning. Do you have any examples?

[Prof. Sébastien Grammond]

I have before me the examples of interpretation errors.

I'll go from English to French.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

That's fine.

[Prof. Sébastien Grammond]

Here's an example. I said that a paragraph of a section of the Civil Code was applicable, and the interpreters said that it wasn't applicable.

In another case, I said that the rights of an individual protected by the charter hadn't been violated. The interpreter reported that the individual's human rights hadn't been violated, but didn't specify that I was referring to charter rights, which is quite different.

On another occasion, while presenting arguments, I spoke about how things are done in common law. The interpreter failed to say “common law”. This gave the impression that I was talking about civil law and it made no sense.

Those are examples of interpretation errors that make arguments very difficult to understand and follow. There's no denying it. When we argue a case before the Supreme Court, we don't have much time and we must be extremely concise and accurate. We don't have the time and opportunity to correct the errors that may occur during simultaneous interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I have a quick comment on the questionnaire you mentioned earlier for the federal judiciary appointments. In the French version, the first question is “Without further training, are you able to read or understand court material…?” In the English version, the question is

“Without further training, are you able to read and understand court material?”

“Or” is used in French and “and” is used in English.

[Prof. Sébastien Grammond]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Go ahead, Ms. Lapointe.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Grammond, you're saying that, if you don't have access to the text of what's being said, the interpretation could lead to an error in the decision.

[Prof. Sébastien Grammond]

Yes. A judge who listens to my argument with the help of an interpreter will understand something different from what I'm trying to say. I have no way to correct this.