Evidence of meeting #51 for Official Languages in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Yes, but it is because I did not understand the answer the witnesses gave. I just wanted—
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
You may be able to speak to them later.
For the moment, we are going to suspend the meeting for a few minutes.
Thank you very much to the witnesses for appearing.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f), we are continuing to study the full implementation of the Official Languages Act in the Canadian justice system.
We are pleased to welcome today Mr. Ronald Bisson, senior manager at the Réseau national de formation en justice, or RNFJ.
Welcome, Mr. Bisson.
We also welcome Ms. Karine McLaren from the Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques of the Faculty of Law of the Université de Moncton.
Hello, Ms. McLaren.
Lastly, we welcome Mr. Rénald Rémillard, who is director general of the Centre canadien de français juridique and Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law.
Welcome, Mr. Rémillard.
Since there are three of you, we are going to allow you five to six minutes to make your presentations. We will then move on to questions and comments.
We are going to begin with you, Mr. Bisson. You have the floor.
11:55 a.m.
Ronald Bisson Senior Manager, Réseau national de formation en justice
Mr. Chair, I first want to thank you for inviting us to speak before the committee as part of the study of the full implementation of the Official Languages Act.
Our presentation is divided into three parts. First of all, I would like to talk to you briefly about three of the requests included in the action plan we submitted to the federal government. You have all received the reference document. Our plan is complete. My colleague Ms. McLaren will then speak about challenges and solutions regarding the standardization of common law in French. Lastly, Mr. Rémillard will speak about the measurement and certification of legal-related language skills.
I will get right to the point and address the requests submitted by the RNFJ to the federal government.
With regard to the first request, we ask that, as part of the new action plan for official languages, the federal government adopt a public policy on equal access to justice in both official languages. In this public policy, we believe that the federal government should affirm its objectives with respect to equal access to justice in both official languages. It should also formulate the principles of collaboration with the provinces in the area of justice, taking into account the constitutional and legislative framework.
It is also very important that the federal government recall that in criminal and family law—and here I am speaking specifically of divorce and conditions of marriage—we must stop talking in terms of linguistic minorities. The Beaulac decision was very clear on this subject. It is rather an issue of two official language communities that are equal. Wherever I go in Canada, I hear people talking about minorities and they say they want to serve them. In criminal and family law, we don't talk about minorities, but about two equal communities. This is our first request.
As for our second request, we believe that federal departments and agencies should really increase their participation in the federal government's multi-year action plan. We propose that the following departments and agencies in particular—but there could be others—also participate in the action plan: the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Correctional Service of Canada, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and Public Safety Canada. The goal here is more efficient use of public funds.
Our field is training and the development of linguistic tools. The numbers are small. If these departments and agencies also participated in the action plan, the training work would be greatly facilitated. We are talking here about participation only with regard to training and linguistic tools. The other duties of these departments and agencies are not at issue.
The two requests I have just mentioned obviously have a significant impact. We believe that it will be necessary to have a point within the federal government for horizontal coordination of all matters relating to justice. We recommend that the federal government assign responsibility for this coordination to Justice Canada's official languages directorate. This will have an impact on vote 1.
With regard to the third request, we recommend that the federal government invest in structuring initiatives. We are aiming at a systemic corrective action. With one-off, short-term projects that have no effect on the system, it is difficult to advance equal access to justice. In the plan we submitted to you, we have formulated six areas of action that in fact include a systemic approach in the field of training and tools. This begins with standardization of common law in French. Ms. McLaren will speak about this in a moment.
The measurement and certification of legal-related language skills will then be discussed. Mr. Rémillard will address this topic in a few minutes. We will then talk about tool development, training of jurilinguists, on-the-job training, and lastly, post-secondary training.
To conclude, I remind you that the RNFJ works in the field of education and development of tools. We want at all costs to avoid unreasonable delays related to language issues within the justice system and in criminal law. Following the decision in the R. v. Jordan case, we would never want to see language issues cause such a delay.
We also believe that language issues should not cause delays in other areas of law where we have rights in the different provinces. Justice system users who experience these delays often see them as a denial of justice. We therefore want to ensure that the necessary tools and training are available, so that the service can be offered at the same time.
We conclude by reiterating our objective, namely that the justice system in Canada have the institutional capacity to function equally well in both official languages.
On that note, I yield the floor to Karine McLaren.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
Karine McLaren Director, Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques, Faculté de droit, Université de Moncton, and member, Réseau national de formation en justice
Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, hello.
I am director of the Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques of the Université de Moncton and I am also a member of the Réseau national de formation en justice. Since I only have a few minutes to talk to you about a rather specialized subject, I am going to dive right into the heart of the matter, the standardization of French common law vocabulary.
What is standardization?
Essentially, it is the creation of Canadian common law terminology in French according to a scientific approach. The objective of standardization is to establish in French a language of common law that coincides exactly with the language of common law in English and that is the same from one province to another. The endeavour should lead to a complete terminology in all sectors making technical use of the legal vocabulary of common law.
Why is this process necessary?
It is necessary because the common law terminology network was developed exclusively in English for centuries. As a result, we find ourselves in an exceptional situation, where we have to introduce as a group a set of legal terms whose meaning is heavily charged and which simply do not exist in French. The standardization operation therefore often results in the creation of new terms or concepts in French, which are called neologisms. This terminology is documented in a terminology database called Juriterm.
The standardized terminology of common law in French is the cornerstone to access to justice in French. This is the submerged part of the legal iceberg or, if I can use another image, these are the roots of the living tree of common law. It is the existence of this technical language that makes it possible, among other things, to build and feed the tools used by legal professionals to offer legal services to justice system users; to teach common law in French; to support language training of professionals in the justice field; to provide legislative drafters with the legal vocabulary necessary to draft laws in both official languages; and to provide legal translators, court interpreters and stenographers with a reliable vocabulary for expressing the law in the other official language.
Think about the following scenario: a couple who wish to divorce appear before an attorney. The legal document templates do not exist in French. They are told that they either have to use the English templates or pay to have them translated into French. Equal access to justice in both official languages demands that these documents be available in these two languages. These documents must not only be available, but also be correct and reliable.
We can't act as terminologists by inventing incorrect or approximate equivalents where there is a high risk that they will not be interpreted as we wish by the courts. Standardization is a scientific process. Each term requires an extensive study of its terminological network in its legal context. This is a job that must be performed by expert jurilinguists.
The problem today is that there are still entire fields of law that have never been studied and fields that have been studied only partially. Common law in French has a lot of catching up to do. The essential tools it requires are also still quite insufficient.
This gives rise to another fundamental problem: if the language of common law in French is not complete or reliable, it is absolutely impossible to talk about equal access to justice in both official languages. Claiming to practise common law in French becomes an undertaking charged with risks and problems for all players in the judicial system, starting with justice system users. We then turn to English, even if it is not the justice system user's chosen language, in order to avoid potentially harmful consequences related to working in French. This is precisely what linguistic insecurity is.
For these reasons, we are making the following recommendations to the committee today.
The government must take positive measures to equip the justice system with the language code and a range of linguistic tools to enable it to function equally well in English or in French.
To do this, the federal government must mandate, empower, and equip the specialized agencies and bodies that operate in this field so that they can tackle three priority areas of action in a consistent manner. The three areas of action are as follows: the standardization of the French vocabulary of common law; the creation and development of the necessary tools, in other words, Juriterm, the Juridictionnaire, miniglossaries, model instruments, resources necessary for legal education in French, and so on; and the training of the architects of the language of law, legal translators and court interpreters, in particular.
In short, we must move from a reactive approach to a systemic, coordinated, and long-term approach.
Thank you to the committee for listening.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
Thank you very much, Ms. McLaren.
We will now move on to Mr. Rénald Rémillard.
12:20 p.m.
Rénald Rémillard Director General, Centre canadien de français juridique inc. et Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc., and member, Réseau national de formation en justice
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am director general of the Centre canadien de français juridique, which is located in Winnipeg. This is a non-profit organization that was created or established in 2010 by seven provincial associations of jurists, namely, associations from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Its goal was to offer training in legal French for stakeholders involved in the administration of justice. By this, we mean provincially appointed judges, probation officers, crown attorneys, court interpreters, and others.
As you know, language is the primary tool of law. The legal field demands a specialized language. Language plays an essential role in the proper functioning of the judicial system. When language is not mastered, errors and negative consequences pile up. The justice system user is then poorly served.
But after 150 years of judicial bilingualism in Canada, a key element is still lacking. In fact, there is no measurement or certification of legal-related language skills.
Of course, there are already measurements of language proficiency level, such as the federal public service assessments that result in scores of A, B or C, with which you are probably familiar. However, no measurement of this type exists in the legal context, that is, in legal French. Nor is there an equivalent in legal English. Nevertheless, the importance of measuring and certifying legal-related language skills is clear.
These measurements and certifications would increase the public's confidence in the language proficiency of stakeholders in the judicial system, including judges, court interpreters, crown attorneys, and probation officers.
They would make it possible to avoid situations where legal-related language proficiency leads to unfortunate situations or, in the worst case, to legal errors that could undermine the rights of justice system users.
They would also help the judicial system better allocate its bilingual human resources in order to more effectively serve francophone justice system users.
Lastly, they would make it possible to determine objectively the true bilingual capacity of judges and other stakeholders involved in the administration of justice. This information could be useful, in particular when selecting candidates for the judiciary.
The action plan of the Réseau national de formation en justice proposes to remedy the absence of measurement and certification of legal-related language skills. And so, we ask that the federal government commit, in the next action plan for official languages, to supporting the projects proposed by the Réseau national de formation en justice, including initiatives promoting training programs in legal French as well as programs for measurement and certification of legal-related skills.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer your questions.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
Thank you very much, Mr. Rémillard.
Thank you to the three witnesses.
We will begin the round. I would like to ask the members of the committee to specify the person to whom the question is addressed.
We will begin with Mr. John Nater.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the witnesses for the information they have provided to us.
I will be asking my questions in English, so that I'm clear in what I'm saying. French is my second language.
The issue of standardization of language is something that I recognize is exceptionally important. Madam McLaren, I find fascinating some of the standardization work that's being undertaken. I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit and provide some examples of phrases or legal terms that are problematic in the sense of multiple meanings, or some examples that require standardization that isn't already there.
12:20 p.m.
Director, Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques, Faculté de droit, Université de Moncton, and member, Réseau national de formation en justice
For example, we were contacted by a legislative drafter from New Brunswick. The goal of standardization is to ensure that everyone uses the same French vocabulary of common law throughout Canada. We cannot have a situation where New Brunswick uses certain terms, while Ontario and the federal government each do something else.
The question was in particular a practical one, because standardization concerns the technical vocabulary of common law. For example, this legislative drafter, who does codrafting and not translation, was not able to define the concept surrounding time limits. She gave the following examples:
“As soon as possible, as soon as practicable, as soon as reasonably practicable, as soon as practical, forthwith, immediately, without delay, within five days.”
All of these concepts have a fairly specialized and limited meaning, in English. There is a federal guide on their use, but there is no guide in French. No one has tackled this issue.
In addition to standardization, we provide guidance on phraseology. We also have a tool, the Juridictionnaire, which offers absolutely essential advice. For example, all of these concepts of time limits have a rather specific meaning in a legal text in English. For each time limit concept, there is a corresponding specific time limit. The court will interpret it in one way and not another. However, in French, uncertainty reigns, and this is a fundamental problem.
Let's take the example of the expression "fee simple absolute", which has been standardized in property law. I think it is "fief simple absolu" in French. When we purchase a property, a house, there is a contract of purchase and sale, and we know what we are buying. We know that we are obtaining the most absolute right that can be had. If this concept does not exist and then this agreement of purchase and sale has to be interpreted by a court, we no longer know what the concept of “fief simple absolu” means.
Consequently, many people do not want to use the French version, because it is not reliable. They do not know what it means. They therefore want to turn to the English version, which is completely contrary to true equality and to access to justice in both official languages.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Very good.
I'm assuming that this isn't a one-time process. I suspect that you can't standardize everything, and then your job is done. This is an ongoing, constant, evergreen type of project that would have to be undertaken.
12:25 p.m.
Director, Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques, Faculté de droit, Université de Moncton, and member, Réseau national de formation en justice
In fact, we started doing standardization in the 1980s under the aegis of what was called POLAJ, an initiative of the Department of Justice. Since then, we have done standardization in several areas of the law: the law of evidence, contract and security law, the law of trusts, family law, property law, and estates law. For the last three years, we have been working on alternate dispute resolution.
The problem is that our funding is granted on an annual basis, which means that it is not predictable. We never know how much we are going to receive. We need expert jurilinguists to do this kind of work. When we run out of funds, as happened this year, we have to stop the work completely. We are not able to complete the work. We constantly find ourselves playing catch-up. In fact, there are hundreds of years of common law we have to catch up with, and that is not possible with this kind of ad hoc approach. We know for only a year at a time how much we are going to receive and how many people we can have working on these initiatives. When will we get to the point where the common law in French can be expressed in the same way as the common law in English? We are constantly playing catch-up.
We are in the process of designing a new approach. At this point, we are doing standardization in entire fields of law, because that approach has an advantage. When we standardize in a field, there are a lot of related terms. We therefore do a lot of work at the same time. However, we would also like to be able to respond to ad hoc needs that arise. It must be noted that the common law is evolving at lightning speed in a number of other fields, such as medical assistance in dying, terrorism, and immigration. We have not even begun that yet.
We need to adopt a truly systematic approach. Instead of looking at a single area of the law, it would be better to address all these needs at the same time.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Mr. Bisson, this is my first question to you.
You talked a little bit in your opening remarks about investing in structures and investing in longer-term projects rather than ad hoc scenarios. Did you have any specific ones in mind that your organization would benefit from in the long term?
12:25 p.m.
Senior Manager, Réseau national de formation en justice
I could give you an example. At present, we offer on-the-job training for employees. We have done statistical analyses. We estimate that outside Quebec alone, about 12,000 employees use French in relation to the justice system, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. For four or five years now, the members of the Réseau have reached about 200 people per year through on-the-job training. However, 200 people out of 12,000 is not going to make a lot of progress.
Investment in technology is needed. We are calling for investment in technology so that not only the training can be given in person, but also an employee can access training directly in their office, using their computer.
We also have to note that many employees use French sporadically. If an employee attends a training session, which may last from three hours to five days, they could forget the content two, three, four, five, or six months later.
Technology is an example of an investment that provides structure and is permanent.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It is a pleasure to meet with our witnesses.
In fact, I know Mr. Rémillard, because we come from the same neighbourhood in Winnipeg.
Mr. Bisson, you are a former Manitoban.
As you know, except perhaps Ms. McLaren, I was a municipal councillor at one time, and we did not have access to justice in both official languages, so this is all new for me.
In recent years, what have the federal government's priorities been in terms of access to justice in both official languages? Where has the funding gone?
12:30 p.m.
Senior Manager, Réseau national de formation en justice
The Department of Justice could give you all the details on that, but I can still give you an initial idea.
For several years, we mainly invested in access to the courts. We were talking about access to justice, but we were mainly investing in prosecutors and in training provincially appointed judges, police, and support staff in the courts.
For the last two years, we have understood that equal access to justice is much broader than just access to the courts. In fact, studies show that only about 6% of cases end up in court.
Now, we want to expand this training to family law and all the other areas that also involve access to justice.
12:30 p.m.
Director, Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques, Faculté de droit, Université de Moncton, and member, Réseau national de formation en justice
I would like to add something.
We are dependent on the roadmap for access to justice in both official languages. That is how our organization funds its standardization work. Our organization is not the only one working on standardization. There has to be a partnership with other jurilinguistic centres and the federal government's translation bureau.
One of the problems is that the present roadmap funds two components: training and information. It is difficult to categorize jurilinguistic tools under either of those two headings. We have to stress the fact that these tools support training, but they are neither direct training nor information. However, these tools are absolutely essential because they are the foundation on which everything is built.
There has been a consultation process for the new 2018-23 roadmap. We specifically want to expand these two components, so that the new roadmap will reflect the importance of this work.
12:30 p.m.
Director General, Centre canadien de français juridique inc. et Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc., and member, Réseau national de formation en justice
I would like to add something concerning the two components, training and information.
A number of justice centres have been set up in several provinces, and in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Ontario in particular. These centres are intended precisely for individuals who go there to get legal information. That is another component. There is the training component, but fairly substantial investments have also been made in legal information.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Yes, thank you.
Ms. McLaren, you were speaking about jurilinguistics a moment ago. You are working on translating the common law into French. Are you also working on translating Quebec's civil law into English?