Occasionally.
Evidence of meeting #56 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 judges.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #56 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 judges.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Professor, Director, International Observatory on Language Rights, Université de Moncton, As an Individual
Occasionally.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Could you speak a little more about that? Is that an issue of translation or interpretation or is that a different issue?
12:30 p.m.
Professor, Director, International Observatory on Language Rights, Université de Moncton, As an Individual
It could be both. Not only am I talking about the judgment, but I'm also talking about the legislation. Even if you have legislation in both official languages it doesn't mean that both versions say exactly the same thing. It is the same thing with the translation of a decision.
If we're saying that both versions of laws have equal authority, people must be able to read both versions. And if there is a divergence between both versions, they must be able to reconcile both versions. The Supreme Court of Canada is giving us a process to do that.
We have the same problem with decisions that are translated either into French or into English. Translators do a very good job, but sometimes something might be lost in the translation. I have examples of them in the books I've written, where the French version and the English version do not say exactly the same thing, but to be able to notice that, you have to read both versions. If you're not able to read both versions, you won't see it. There's a possibility of an interpretation later on, depending on which version you're using, an interpretation of the law that might be different if you proceed in French or if you proceed in English.
There are even examples of decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada where both versions don't say exactly the same thing. If we're talking about equality in the judiciary, it becomes more and more important for lawyers and judges to understand that if you're using federal law, or using laws in New Brunswick, Manitoba, Quebec, or even in Ontario, that you be able to read both versions to make sure you're giving complete legal advice to your client and not only half.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Currently in the judicial system, the Federal Court judges self-declare their state of bilingualism without any standardized testing or third party evaluation.
I wonder if you could talk a little bit about that.
12:35 p.m.
Professor, Director, International Observatory on Language Rights, Université de Moncton, As an Individual
That's a problem. I could auto-evaluate myself in Spanish and probably I would be fluent, but I don't believe that a person who speaks Spanish would say that I am fluent.
I believe there must be an outside.... If we do it for the public service, we should also do it for the judiciary. Before they are appointed, there should be an evaluation of their capacity to function in French and English for oral, written, and comprehension.
12:35 p.m.
Professor, Director, International Observatory on Language Rights, Université de Moncton, As an Individual
Yes, it should be a standard test.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
Madame Pellerin, you mentioned the action plan. What do you think Canada's, or the federal government's, main priorities should be in respect of access to justice in the next action plan? Perhaps you could start with the top three.
12:35 p.m.
Director, Infojustice Manitoba
Obviously in my position, one of the main areas of focus should be funding in order to allow individuals to have information regarding any matter touching justice. It could be simple information guiding them in their journey to the law court or it could be information with respect to their own issues.
In Manitoba, we have a lot of information or resources for English-speaking individuals. Access to justice for people speaking English in Manitoba, according to me and where I'm standing, is not a problem. There are justice centres, legal aid, and a bunch of English resources for them. In French, the problem is that they need to be accommodated to obtain the same information that an English-speaking person will get. If they attend a legal help centre, they might have to come back the next week in order to see someone who speaks French. They might need to go somewhere else to get the same pamphlet in French or they might need to simply print the PDF version because the centre doesn't have the French version.
One of the main issues that needs to be addressed in the next plan is to ensure that French-speaking individuals have the same access as people who speak English. That can be with respect to lawyers, centres, resources, pamphlets, anything along those lines, just to ensure that people have the same access to the same information.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
If I could summarize, you've mentioned adequate funding, providing necessary information, and specific resources across the board. Is there anything else that you would add to that list? Is that it?
12:35 p.m.
Director, Infojustice Manitoba
That's roughly it. With respect to the information centre, I don't want to speak for other organizations, but for me and for the centre of information in Manitoba, that would be one of the main areas of focus.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative John Nater
Thank you.
We will conclude this round with Mr. Samson.
You have the floor for six minutes.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the interest of time, I'm going to ask all of my questions together. I have three questions: two for Mr. Doucet and one for Ms. Pellerin.
First, Ms. Pellerin, what French services is the francophone minority community of Manitoba seeking to obtain?
Mr. Doucet, here in Parliament we have access to a lot of training to help us become bilingual. With the representatives of the Translation Bureau, we discussed the importance of training to help people become bilingual. We also discussed setting up co-op programs in universities in order to prepare the new generation. If that is done, should it not also be done for lawyers and judges, given the importance of bilingualism for the future?
Also, Mr. Doucet, let's suppose you became Prime Minister tomorrow morning for five years. What two or three measures would you put in place during your mandate to ensure better access to justice within five years?
I'm listening.
12:40 p.m.
Professor, Director, International Observatory on Language Rights, Université de Moncton, As an Individual
May I have two hours to reply?
12:40 p.m.
Director, Infojustice Manitoba
I will answer first, and then I will let Mr. Doucet answer the questions that require more exposition.
Manitoba francophones are asking for access to services in French right from the start of proceedings. That is to say, from the information stage right up to the end. Infojustice Manitoba is the go-to for those who launch a legal recourse and are looking for information. The point is to have a place where francophones can go to obtain information and services in French without being asked to come back the following Tuesday, for example, when a francophone trainee will be available. Despite that, the services francophones have access too are not always equal to those anglophones generally have. And so we are there right from the beginning of the proceedings.
As for access to jurisprudence or writ models, certain websites provide some in French, but the majority are in English. So there is a problem for the person who wants to prepare and represent himself. That is where Infojustice Manitoba comes in.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Thank you very much.
Mr. Doucet, you may answer.
12:40 p.m.
Professor, Director, International Observatory on Language Rights, Université de Moncton, As an Individual
Regarding training for judges, there is a very good program in New Brunswick offered by the Shippagan campus, under the direction of Judge Finn. This program is offered to judges nationally. Anglophone judges go there to experience total immersion in French. It is a good program. If I were with the federal government, I would multiply the number of programs of that type and provide funding for them.
If I were Prime Minister tomorrow morning, on the justice front, I would pass a law requiring that justices of the Supreme Court of Canada be bilingual when they are nominated. This would entrench that requirement.
I would also see to it that more training be given to officers of the court and to judges, in both official languages, so that the Canadian justice system may indeed be bilingual and not dualistic.
Finally, I would provide funding to law faculties. I'm preaching for my own bailiwick here, even though I will be retiring from the law faculty on July 1 and will no longer be there. Be that as it may, the federal government should provide funding to law faculties so that they can make their students more aware of language rights. In many law faculties that is never taught. This funding would also be used to provide training to these future jurists, who will be applying Canadian laws, so that they have a better understanding of both Canadian systems, francophone and anglophone, and to allow them to become bilingual. It would be a commendable initiative on the part of the federal government to grant this funding to advance bilingualism in the justice system in Canada.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Thank you.
Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative John Nater
No.
Thank you to the witnesses.
I would like to remind the committee that we are not meeting on Thursday. Thursday is a Friday, so we will not be meeting. Our next meeting will be on May 2.
The meeting is adjourned.