Official Languages Committee on April 11th, 2017

[Stephen Thompson]

They didn't share those numbers with us. For the inmate OL population, they didn't share the exact number. I just don't think they knew the number that day when we visited. But we did meet with several English-speaking inmates. Don't forget that there's a very large Inuit population, or a disproportional Inuit population, so the institution is actually working in four languages: English, French, Inuit, and Cree. There's an aboriginal language angle as well.

We heard instances where English inmates had to transfer from minimum security institutions to medium security institutions to get access to the programs they needed to go before the Parole Board.

We also heard stories of English inmates who were incarcerated past their parole date because there were no English-speaking places for them in halfway houses in Montreal. If that's the case in Montreal, you can imagine what the situation is like in Quebec City. You can imagine what the situation might be like for a francophone inmate finding a French bed in a halfway house in Calgary or Edmonton.

These are systemic problems that CSC has in managing its OL commitments.

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

Thank you.

You mentioned earlier that it was all the guards who did not speak both official languages. Is that the case for all detention centre staff? You said that only 2.9% of employees in Quebec were anglophone.

[Stephen Thompson]

Right, so these are the part VI numbers that we received from Treasury Board Canada. I know that earlier last year the committee was looking for part VI figures. We got those numbers out of Treasury Board. We shared them with the analyst. We know that 2.9% of Correctional Service's workforce in Quebec identify as English speaking.

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

The problem is that the bonus is not enough.

That's what you said.

Do you have a suggestion to solve that problem?

[Stephen Thompson]

If the services were available to English-speaking inmates, there wouldn't be an increased workload for the Correctional Service officers taking care of them and managing their cases.

The problem right now is that, because these services aren't available, it's an exponential workload to work with an English-speaking inmate. It's not worth it for them. An extra $800 a year is not worth it.

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

Okay, thank you very much.

You mentioned that there were three aspects to consider in terms of the problem of access to justice in English, including infrastructure.

When you go to court, with all the employees over there, do you have a problem finding an anglophone in the justice court?

[Michael Bergman]

In the case of courts under Quebec's jurisdiction, most officials are unilingual francophone. Occasionally, an official speaks both official languages and is able to speak functionally with an anglophone resident. However, I would say that, in my experience, most officials speak only French, even in Montreal, and that if a resident asks to be served in English, someone needs to be found who can speak and hold a conversation in that language.

I want to correct one point. You asked Mr. Thompson a question that implies certain things. The fact that an anglophone speaks French easily or is completely bilingual is not a reason to deny that person's right to speak in English.

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

I agree.

[Michael Bergman]

Once in a while, in Quebec, people wonder why an anglophone would need service in English if they can easily speak French. People say that, if everyone spoke French, as I am doing now, there would be no need to invest more in English-language services. If the language—I am not referring to the official language, but the functional language—in Quebec or elsewhere is French, everyone speaks French. So what's the problem?

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

I would now like to ask Mr. Thompson a question.

We talk about les centres de détention, but is it easy to receive services in English from the RCMP?

[Stephen Thompson]

We have no indication that it is difficult. We have no indication from our community that there is a problem receiving services from the RCMP in English in Quebec.

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

Okay.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Mr. Donnelly, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today to provide their testimony.

Mr. Thompson, I'll start with you. You know that the government has created an independent advisory board for Supreme Court of Canada judicial appointments. One of the criteria to select a new Supreme Court justice is bilingualism in Canada's official languages.

I wonder if you could comment on that.

[Stephen Thompson]

As we've said before, we support a legislative solution to effect that aim. The problem, as we see it, with having a board and having that as one of a series of criteria is that it is changeable government to government. It's an administrative “we would like to see”. It's not a legal “you must have”. There is a distinction there that we certainly make.

We have supported and continue to support legislation that requires Supreme Court judges to be bilingual without the aid of an interpreter.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I'm sensing that you're saying it doesn't go far enough. What would you like to see? What would you recommend to the government to add or change?

[Stephen Thompson]

What we have said when this question has come up before this committee in previous Parliaments is that we support legislation that requires bilingualism in Supreme Court justices without the aid of interpretation.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Bergman, do you believe it should be a right that individuals and lawyers be understood both orally and in writing by a Supreme Court of Canada judge without assistance? If so, can you provide the legislation and law with—

[Michael Bergman]

I believe that, but let's say that right now and since Confederation in 1867 we've had one-half of those rights. Section 133 of the Constitution Act, the original BNA, says that anybody can address a court in English or French in Quebec or at the federal level, but that doesn't mean that the listener has to understand what the person is saying. You could literally have, and I've seen this actually in some cases in Quebec, somebody address the court in English and the judge not be able to address the litigant in English, and he or she addresses the litigant in French.

Somebody has to do the interpretation, the translation. Typically and in most instances, it would be the lawyer. The judge would look at me and say,

“Mr. Bergman, could you interpret my words for your client?”

All of a sudden, I am the lawyer, and I am the interpreter. Not only that, in the meantime the trial is continuing, and so I need to listen to what is happening. My brain is functioning on three levels at once. Now, maybe I can chew gum and walk—that's two at the same time—but three is extremely difficult. What happens, at least in my experience, is that the translation suffers, and then I need to say to the judge,

“Your Honour, I need a break for a few minutes to summarize what you said for my client.”

In the meantime, my client is sitting there, and rightly or wrongly, the client does not understand French or understands it poorly and is looking like a deer in the headlights, wondering, “What's happening to my case? I don't understand. Is this good or is this bad? Are we winning, or are we losing?”

That is not right.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you for that explanation.

To go a little further in follow-up, this is a systemic issue across the country. We're looking at the top levels of the judiciary. Obviously we have a lot of work to do there. How would we address going to other, lower levels, the systemic issues that we face either in Quebec or in the rest of Canada?

[Michael Bergman]

I believe the federal Parliament has a duty to investigate ways to expand, within the meaning of section 133 of the Constitution Act, and has a duty to provide adequate programs for bilingual training of jurists and judicial personnel. It has a duty to put out the money, because unfortunately most provinces, including Quebec, do not want to put up the money. It has a duty to recognize that not only is it an obligation, but the French and English languages undergird the entire structure of the federation. Once that core principle weakens, then we need to re-examine what it is that binds us together.

We can be an example in the world. We are unique. There have been other countries that have tried this. Decades ago it was often called an experiment. I do not believe that Canada is an experiment. It is not a test-tube baby or some sort of high school chemistry lab program. The federal Parliament, however, has an obligation on a continuing basis to find solutions. I've suggested a few, and I'd be happy to look at this and suggest others.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Ms. Dabrusin, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I really care about this issue. I was born in Montreal. I am a lawyer now in Toronto.

I'm bilingual, and it's very interesting to hear what you were saying today. Thank you both for coming.

I want to go back. You spoke at the beginning, Mr. Thompson, about organic access to justice and also about finding a common definition of access to justice. Do you have any definition that you would like to suggest?

[Stephen Thompson]

No, I don't have any common definitions to suggest. I will, however, point out that we had a literature review that was funded by Justice Canada. It was the beginning of a large access to justice research project that the association has now taken over. One of the aims of that project was to define access to justice for our community.

We're saying in our presentation today and in our brief that it's really hard for us to come together and talk about access to justice when there isn't a common definition on access to justice. Everything I've read says, “There is no common agreement on this term, but this is what I think it is.” The Canadian Bar Association thinks it means this; Justice Canada thinks it's that; the FAJEF might think it's this; we might think it's something else.

How do you develop public policy around access to justice when you don't even know what you're talking about? All we're suggesting is that it would be nice if the stakeholders could come up with a common understanding of what the term means so we have a common lexicon on which to advance public policy.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

As witnesses giving your expert advice today, I put it to both of you: What are the elements of access to justice? We've spoken about a couple of parts today, but if you had to break it down, what are the major components that we need to be looking at?