Official Languages Committee on March 9th, 2017

[Karine McLaren]

No. Our centre works exclusively on translating the common law into French. We also work closely with the Paul-André Crépeau Centre for Private and Comparative Law at McGill University, which deals with the Quebec side of things.

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

Right. So it is another organization in Quebec that handles that.

[Karine McLaren]

Yes.

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

Right.

Thank you.

[Karine McLaren]

The phraseology tools for legal French apply both in Quebec and in a common law province. Only the technical vocabulary of the common law in French would change in Quebec.

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

Thank you very much. That is a precise answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

You have the floor again, Mr. Vandal.

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

At what level of the justice system does access to justice in both official languages present the greatest challenges?

[Rénald Rémillard]

Perhaps I can answer that question.

In fact, it varies from one province to another. Certainly there have been additional investments in the provincial courts, mainly to comply with the obligations set out in part XVII of the Criminal Code, which provide that a person is entitled to be tried in the official language of their choice when they are charged under the Criminal Code. A lot of emphasis has been put on that.

Obviously, language rights also vary from one province to another. In some provinces, there is no access to justice in French simply because there are no language rights.

So, given that it varies from one province to another, it is difficult to identify a specific challenge. I can say, however, that in the past, the emphasis has been put mainly on the language rights obligations in the Criminal Code. For more legal reasons, that is where the emphasis has been. Conversely, we get a lot of calls from people who want information about family law, divorce, or another subject of that nature, because that affects their everyday lives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Choquette, you have the floor.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Rémillard, thank you very much for your testimony.

I would like to go back to what you said a little earlier. If I am not mistaken, you said that there is no mechanism to specifically assess legal language skills.

[Rénald Rémillard]

That is exactly right. There is no assessment of legal language skills. A person can have the language skills needed for functioning in a general way—for example, when you order a coffee in Paris—but understanding what is said in a courtroom or at a trial where there is a lot of legal content is an entirely different thing. There is no measure for assessing those skills.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I am going to ask you a question, and it is not a problem if you do not know the answer.

There is a new process, or a new policy, for appointing judges to the Supreme Court. Justice Rowe, who is bilingual, has been appointed. What language assessment was done in his case?

[Rénald Rémillard]

I could not answer that question.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Right.

In Graham Fraser's report, which was produced with the official language commissioners of Ontario and New Brunswick, it says that one of the problems in the superior courts is the fact that the judges self-assess. The problem is that some judges overestimate or underestimate their language skills.

After this new announcement by the federal government, there will be more self-assessment and, if necessary, a language assessment. What do you think of this new approach?

[Rénald Rémillard]

The certification measure is intended to provide an objective criterion. Essentially, it is to determine whether a person has the necessary language skills. It is also a way of providing everybody with security. It reassures people to be told that they can preside at a hearing or argue a case in French. It is an objective way of determining the level of French skills in a legal context.

This is an instrument we use in the public service. We propose that something similar be put in place, but in a legal context. As I said, words are important in the legal field, and so it is important to measure these skills accurately.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Do you want to add something, Ms. McLaren?

[Karine McLaren]

Self-assessment absolutely does not work. I think we have to move toward a model that is not based on self-assessment. The papers recently reported a case in New Brunswick where a judge appointed to the Provincial Court who said he was bilingual gave a decision when he was not capable of hearing the case in French. That was published in the newspapers and the decision was appealed. So self-assessment is a bad idea.

You are undoubtedly aware of Justice Finn's language training program, for example, which is intended to train judges to hear cases in the other official language. The judge is also working on establishing a certification measure that will involve certain levels. The certification measure is not used to tell judges whether they speak well or not, but to tell them what they are capable of doing.

I think that is a very good approach, because the judges can then situate themselves on a certain scale. It lets them know what cases they can hear and how far they can go. It is a gradual process, you could say. The judges can continue to take training until they are capable of moving to the next level. I think that is the way to go.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

What you are saying is very important. When I met the Commissioner of Official Languages, that is one of the first points he talked to me about. He also took his report off his bookshelf and asked me to read it carefully and make sure it was going to be implemented. At that time, in 2013, it had unfortunately been shelved. So he asked me to make sure there would be action taken on the main recommendations.

One of the recommendations was that self-assessment not be used, and that an assessment of language skills be done instead. You have said that it is not sufficient to do an assessment of language skills, that it must also be done with consideration given to the legal or professional aspect.

Has progress be made in relation to the training, the availability of the people who teach in both official languages, or access to training in both official languages for becoming a judge or lawyer?

[Rénald Rémillard]

The Centre canadien de français juridique offers training for crown attorneys and court interpreters. Some training courses can be given online, and others in person.

I was in Canmore recently, where 80 people—crown attorneys, court interpreters and provincial court judges—were taking a training course. There was a mixture of people: linguists and people who had taken language training with professionals in the field, that is, crown attorneys who are bilingual and are very familiar with the work. The training was not abstract; it was very concrete. There were mock trials with all of the participants, and this gave the interpreters a chance to play their role.

At one point, some of the participants decided to switch from French to Spanish, to change things. Two or three participants were able to speak Spanish. The training took place first in French, and then the crown attorneys, provincial court judges, and other participants had to do it all over again. In many cases, the people had French as a second language, and for others it was their mother tongue, but they were all in the habit of practising exclusively in English. When they tried to use correct terminology in the courtroom, it was not always easy. That is the kind of training we give.

We also often get calls or emails from people who work in federal, provincial, or municipal institutions who are asking for this kind of training. In some cases, the people are prepared to pay out of pocket to take this training.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rémillard.

Ms. McLaren, you may answer also.

[Karine McLaren]

The training that Mr. Rémillard is talking about is meant for justice professionals, but not judges, and certainly not for federally appointed judges. I had wondered about that question myself, because our organization was interested in providing training.

The present roadmap would not fund training for federally appointed judges. There are already organizations that look after providing training for judges, the National Judicial Institute and the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice in particular. That is how training for judges is delivered, and we have not tried to look beyond that.

It would be a good idea for there to be co-operation with those organizations so we could find a way to stress the importance of language training for judges.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lefebvre, you have the floor.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to you, Mr. Bisson.

In your presentation, you talked about three priorities that you want to emphasize, public policy relating to equal access to justice in both official languages and horizontal governance through the Department of Justice. You did a study and decided that these were your priorities.

What was not working, for your group to come up with those priorities?

[Ronald Bisson]

I can answer your question, Mr. Lefebvre. I am also going to go back to Mr. Choquette's question.

At the Réseau, we consider it important to measure the progress achieved. That is part of our approach. If we cannot measure something, it is difficult to manage it, and if we do not manage it, we cannot improve it.

Through the Réseau, we reach about 200 people per year at present. These people receive on-the-job training. However, there are 12,000 people, or even more, who are eligible for the training.

I would also like to talk to you about post-secondary graduates. You asked whether there were enough professionals. There are about 300 graduates per year, outside Quebec, in various justice fields. These are programs to train lawyers or police officers, college programs, and so on. According to our statistical analyses, there would have to be at least 600 graduates per year to meet the needs over the next few years. In other words, the number of graduates would have to be twice what it is. Otherwise, the number will be flatly insufficient in five or ten years. This is already apparent when we talk to human resources managers who hire justice professionals. There are not enough bilingual people, and they are really wondering where they are going to be able to find them.

In our first two recommendations, we suggest that a federal policy be established. A lot of things are happening when it comes to equal access to justice in both official languages, but there is insufficient coordination. We do not take a system approach.

We believe, however, that the federal government should make a public policy setting out its objectives in relation to equal access to justice and the principles underlying its relationships with the provinces. This is, in fact, a federal-provincial relationship issue. Things are not always well coordinated. In some places, you can speak to the judge in French, but you cannot do it at the entrance and you also cannot file documents in French. That is the coordination that is necessary. We are proposing that the Canadian government set out the way it is going to work, in a public policy.

The 2003 action plan is a model that we have analyzed extensively. In appendix A, we set out an accountability framework for official languages that covers the entire federal bureaucracy. As of today, that accountability framework is still having a structuring effect. What we have thought about is a model of this type.

Why extend the action plan into the field of justice? As Ms. McLaren said, Justice Canada is the only actor. For our part, we are permitted to work only with provincial employees.