Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 3 - Evidence, June 5, 2006
OTTAWA, Monday June 5, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:27 p.m. to study and report from time to time on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chairman) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Honourable colleagues, Minister, welcome. Pursuant to the order of reference conferred upon this committee to study the application of the Official Languages Act, we have before us the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Justice.
[English]
Welcome, minister. Before allowing time for the minister to give his presentation, I would like to introduce the members of the committee.
[Translation]
On my left, we have Senator Andrée Champagne, from Grandville, Quebec; Senator Trenholme Counsell, from New Brunswick; Senator Comeau, from Nova Scotia; Senator Plamondon, from the Laurentides area, in Quebec.
On my right, Senator Robichaud, from New Brunswick, and Senator Tardif from Alberta.
[English]
Hon. Vic Toews, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair, and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate committee. I am pleased to appear before you today to talk about official languages from the particular perspective of the Department of Justice.
Let me first reaffirm the statement made less than a couple weeks ago by my colleague, the Minister for Official Languages; namely, the government I represent is committed to enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities and to promoting linguistic duality.
In so doing, however, the involvement of the federal government must take into account that the administration of justice is an area of shared jurisdiction, and we must act with respect for provincial competencies. We will work with our provincial partners to assure official language minority communities have necessary access to the justice system.
This is not to say that the federal government cannot play a role in delivering services to our federal citizens. On the contrary, I believe that every effort should be made to ensure that our fellow citizens are being provided with services they can rightfully expect under their language rights.
Canada is a bilingual country, and respect for the linguistic duality is a core value that guides and informs the choices we make with respect to the justice system.
I was Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Manitoba when the Honourable Judge Richard Chartier submitted his report entitled ``Above All, Common Sense.'' I know, Madam Chair, you are familiar with that report, and indeed familiar with Judge Chartier and the recommendations on French language services within the Government of Manitoba back in 1998.
In his report, Judge Chartier recognized the importance of providing the official language minority community, where justified, with the same level of services in the language of its choice that is expected by the official language majority community, based on the principle of both continuing quality improvement and active offer.
I concur with that conclusion and feel that justice is indeed an area where those services are acutely needed by members of the official language minority community.
The implementation of Judge Chartier's report led to, amongst other things, the creation of the Bilingual Service Centre of St-Pierre-Jolys.
I made a comment in 1998, when the report and recommendations were made by Judge Chartier, that St-Pierre- Jolys was not in my riding. I represented a Winnipeg riding. I now represent the riding of Provencher, which, second only to St. Boniface, has the largest number of francophones in a Western Canadian riding. Indeed, sometimes I think I have more than St. Boniface. I am well aware of the importance of the other official language. The official language well used in my riding is French, and, of course, English.
This centre, inaugurated two years ago, offers bilingual justice services to the citizens of the area. The federal government has actively and financially supported its creation. Its success is a demonstration of the importance of cooperation between the federal and provincial governments in addressing these issues.
The bilingual service centre developed by Manitoba could be used as an example for the provision of services to the official language minority communities across Canada. The previous government adopted the Action Plan for Official Languages and, as evidenced by the results reported in the update on the implementation of the plan, the Department of Justice is showing leadership in improving access to justice in both official languages. The department also received a positive mention in the last report from the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Amongst other things, the department has implemented a consultation process with various jurists' associations in order to better work with them within its mandate.
In 2003, the department created a support fund that has provided funding for over 100 projects, including for the association of French-speaking lawyers, their national federation, supporting the development of legal, linguistic and terminology tools, as well as training for stakeholders of the justice system in access to justice in both official languages. The latter activity is particularly aimed at the effective implementation of the language provisions of the Criminal Code.
The department also established a federal-provincial-territorial working group to engage communication among its members on improving access to justice in both official languages. Although participation in the working group is purely voluntary, I am pleased to report that all provinces and territories are active members.
One of the outcomes from the working group's activities is the establishment of the bilingual prosecutor's network, which is aimed at breaking down the isolation of its members through sharing and support. It supports bilingual prosecutors and ensures they have the necessary training, which is a key element in providing bilingual criminal justice services. It aids in the resolution of lesser charges at an early stage of the proceedings and ensures that accused persons can deal with the Crown in the language of their choice.
Another outcome is the training organized by the French Language Institute for Professional Development. It is aimed at bilingual Crown prosecutors and other professionals of the justice system. This training is designed to develop common French terminology for court proceedings and will help ensure efficient operation of a bilingual justice system. Provided for the first time in 2005, the training was a complete success and will be repeated this year.
On a more prosaic note, the department is also engaged in the implementation of the Contraventions Act, in keeping with the spirit of the decision of the Federal Court in this matter and Department of Justice undertakings under the action plan.
I am also responsible for implementing the Legislative Instruments Re-enactment Act. This act provides for the re- enactment of legislative instruments that were originally enacted in only one official language. It was passed in order to dispel any doubt as to their validity.
As a resident of Manitoba and a lawyer who worked for many years in the provincial Attorney General's department, I am familiar with the complications that can arise when one enacts legislation in a bilingual province like Manitoba in one language only. Therefore I am pleased to see that we are keeping up to date with this responsibility.
To that effect, a team was created to review all of the legislative instruments enacted from 1867 to 1988. That review is scheduled to be completed by June 2007.
Finally, knowing the interest of the committee in the issue of the linguistic capacity of federally appointed judges, I will speak briefly about our efforts in this area. I am fully aware of the position taken by the Commissioner of Official Languages with respect to the appointment of federal judges and linguistic capacity. I want to assure this committee that our government is committed to ensuring that the federal judiciary's linguistic capacity meets with the needs identified by the chief justice of each relevant court. Their comments and requirements are considered at each stage of the judicial process and the government takes steps to appoint judges who will fulfill those requirements.
When I was the Attorney General in Manitoba, there was a problem in providing a sufficient number of French- speaking judges at the provincial level. I know that sometimes it is difficult to persuade people of that necessity, and yet that was a challenge from which I did not shy away, and my intention is to take the same position as the federal Attorney General, where I am not only responsible for the administration of justice in one province, but indeed the entire country.
Madam Chair, honourable senators of the committee, this concludes my presentation; thank you for your attention. I will be happy to take your questions.
I have two of my colleagues here from the department. I would ask them to introduce themselves to the committee, with their titles and responsibilities, as they will be taking many of the technical questions.
[Translation]
Andrée Duchesne, Senior Counsel and Manager Francophonie, Justice in Official Languages and Legal Dualism, Justice Canada: Madam Chair, distinguished senators, my name is Andrée Duchesne. I am Senior Counsel and Manager of the Justice unit in Official Languages with the Department of Justice and I manage the Access to Justice in both official languages Support Fund as well as the consultation mechanism with official language minority communities which Minister Toews referred to in his speech.
Marc Tremblay, General Counsel and Director, Official Languages Law Group, Justice Canada: Madam Chair, my name is Marc Tremblay. I am General Counsel and Director of the Official Languages Law Group at the Department of Justice. This team provides legal advice to all federal institutions concerning all official languages related issues.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Senator Comeau, the floor is yours.
Senator Comeau: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
[English]
Welcome, minister. I plan to go through a number of questions. Since the passage of Bill S-3, which rendered Part VII of the Official Languages Act enforceable, there has been a reference to the department having to take positive measures under section 41 of the act. Has your department started looking at the question of defining ``positive measures''?
Mr. Toews: Thank you. You will have to forgive some of my relative inexperience with this particular file. I have very good officials who will correct me should I make a mistake.
The expression ``positive measures'' is a new addition to Part VII of the Official Languages Act and is not defined. Courts have yet to provide any guidance on the meaning of these positive measures; however, I can indicate that it is the responsibility of each federal institution to take all necessary measures to comply with this part of the act, as with all parts of the act, and the official languages accountability framework, by requiring that consultations be held with the official language minority and that due consideration be given to official languages to allow institutions to identify those measures that can be taken.
I would ask Mr. Tremblay to provide you with additional information.
Mr. Tremblay: I think that is it, unless you have further questions.
[Translation]
Senator, should you want further information on our approach to this issue, I could take a supplementary question.
Senator Comeau: I especially wanted to know if you had started debating an official definition or if you intended to wait until the justice system takes the matter in hand.
Mr. Tremblay: As you know, we are not here to discuss the opinion of the Department of Justice and since, basically, the answer is open to interpretation, we would be engaging in mere speculation. Clearly, on a daily basis, we have to provide advice to federal institutions and explain to them the changes made to the act so that they can do their homework, to borrow Ms. Adam's expression. So they are currently reviewing their obligations under the act.
[English]
Senator Comeau: With regards to bilingual judges in the francophone and Acadian communities of Canada, we seem to have a lack of candidates and the number of existing judges is rather low. I am thinking of a place like Nova Scotia, where, I believe, we have only three judges who are bilingual.
Have you considered, or will you be considering, whether a certain number of judges should be designated for provinces? Would you consider, for example, a certain minimum in Manitoba or New Brunswick or Nova Scotia? Would you aim for an objective and try to attain this number?
Mr. Toews: I do not particularly like establishing quotas. However, I do want to ensure that there are sufficient judicial officers to meet the needs of either official language, whether it is English or French.
In fact, my experience in Manitoba was that we were of short French-speaking judges, and part of the problem that arose there was, of course, that a committee looks at approving names, and the approval process was done a little differently than it is federally. Federally, we screen applicants. There is a large pool to pick from, and in looking at the names of these individuals and their background, there appears to be sufficient numbers to choose from if the demand warrants. In Manitoba, for example, you could only choose for each position from the three or so names that were put forward. Often, you were put in a position of saying, ``Well, I do not have an individual whom I need in terms of the particular qualifications,'' such as the French language, and that was a particular problem under the Manitoba system.
I do not anticipate that problem here.
My approach will be to consult closely with the chief justices who are charged with ensuring that there is an adequate contingent on their benches to be certain that French language or English language services are met. I will not set a quota, but I will be mindful of ensuring that there are adequate numbers of those who can provide minority language services.
Senator Comeau: If the chief justices are not a part of the community that actually needs the service, or that would require the service, they may be the last people you want to consult. You may want to consult or have your officials consult with a community that is foreseeing a lack of the numbers of judges that will be needed, and they may in fact be the ones who require this service, rather than a chief justice who is not really familiar with the community.
Mr. Toews: I take your point that perhaps the consultation should be broader than simply with a chief justice. That is a good point.
I would hope that every chief justice would be familiar not only with the needs of the court, but the needs of the community, and that each of them acts in a responsible way in that respect.
I have no indication at this point that chief justices will do anything that would be contrary to the public interest in advancing French language or English language services.
Senator Comeau: That is not my suggestion whatsoever, minister. I would not ever suggest that a chief justice would not act in the best interests of the community. I am saying that they may not be familiar with the realities of the minority communities in certain provinces. I assume that most of the chief judges in Nova Scotia live in Halifax. They do not live where the minority communities live, in rural, coastal communities quite distant from Halifax. They may not be familiar with them, although not through a lack of interest or goodwill. That is why I suggest, minister, you might want to have a broader consultation in the case of minority communities, both in Quebec with the English community, and outside Quebec with the francophone community.
Mr. Toews: The point is well taken.
[Translation]
Senator Plamondon: I have a supplementary question. Shouldn't the federal government send out a clear message that French is required to get certain positions? Wouldn't that broaden the pool of potential candidates?
The Chairman: I do not think that is a supplementary question. I will come back to you.
Senator Plamondon: But I am referring to judges.
Senator Robichaud: What is the language of work at the Department of Justice? Are there any sections in the department, or elsewhere, where the language of work is French?
[English]
Mr. Toews: I will let one of my officials answer. In my experience, brief though it is, with the Department of Justice as the minister, and certainly my broader experience with the federal Department of Justice as a justice department lawyer in Manitoba for many years, I found many qualified francophones able to deliver services and, indeed, work in French. I may well have a skewed view, because unfortunately, when they approach me they have to speak in the one official language that I understand. I believe I have made it clear in my dealings with all of my staff that individuals are entitled to work in both official languages. I can perhaps leave that to one of my staff.
Senator Robichaud: I do not doubt that you have made it clear that they are free to work in both official languages.
[Translation]
Often — and it may be our fault, I mean francophones, because we often switch languages. We switch to English. I understand that when people speak to you, minister, they do so in English. I have no problem with that. Are there places where people work mainly in French?
Mr. Tremblay: I can assist the minister in answering that question. Indeed, French units, as they existed under the former Official Languages Act, do not exist anymore within the federal public service. More specific questions on that subject should be put to the President of the Treasury Board, who is the minister responsible for Part V of the Official Languages Act. That being said, at the Department of Justice, we are responsible for drafting legislative texts, bills and regulations. As you know, since you experience this every day, the bills are drafted in both languages. At the department, francophone legal experts draft the documents in French, and the anglophone lawmakers do so in English. This is just one example of how well institutional bilingualism works in our institutions.
My team works in the area of language rights in French. We issue about the same number of legal opinions in English as in French. The main language of work for us is French, and this applies to anglophones and francophones equally, and it happens by choice. Of course, as a manager, I want to respect everyone's rights. I write up performance reports, instruments of work, and anything the law requires in both official languages, but in everyday life, we basically operate in a French environment. I will openly admit that this is not the general rule everywhere, but it does exist.
Senator Robichaud: Congratulations. Can you give me other examples? You told us about your sector. I congratulate you for what you are doing.
Mr. Tremblay: I can give you the example of the unit in charge of regulations. Civil law litigation within the Department of Justice is basically organized along linguistic lines because the Department of Justice's Crown prosecutors who plead in court are also subject to a very onerous system which is heavily weighted towards civil law, and, when a person subject to trial chooses to have their trial in French, the file will be given to a French-speaking prosecutor, who will work with French legal texts, conduct his or her defence or pleading in French, and who will have the support of a French-speaking team. The same happens on the English-speaking side.
Senator Robichaud: In the case you have just described, do the people who wish to plead in French receive the same services as quickly as those who are involved on the English side?
Mr. Tremblay: Are you talking about people who are subject to trial? Opposing parties?
Senator Robichaud: Yes.
Mr. Tremblay: As far as I know, it is a bit like what the minister described regarding judges. The department is organized to respond equally to the needs of persons subject to trial across the country through its regional offices. With regard to Bill C-3, I went to the regional office of the department in Halifax. I met with a group which practises in French and there were about 20 lawyers and support staff who practise in French, and we are not aware of any problems. In fact, court rules state that, whether you plead in English or in French, the timelines are the same. We have 30 days to present our defence.
Senator Tardif: I am very pleased to see that the Department of Justice has achieved so much in the last year.
My question is about the fact that the headquarters of the Canadian Tourism Commission moved to Vancouver. As you know, this decision will have implications regarding the application of Part V of the Official Languages Act and on whether people will still be able to work in the language of their choice. Moving an administration from a bilingual region to a unilingual one will certainly affect the right of employees to work in the official language of their choice.
The government took that decision in March of 2005, and since June 27, 2005, under the principle of application of the language of work, the language rights of employees are protected on a provisional basis.
I would like to know whether your department will provide employees with something more permanent, and not simply operate in an ad hoc manner every time an administration is moved from a bilingual region to a unilingual one. Would you be willing to review the regulations, as was suggested by the Official Languages Commissioner?
[English]
Mr. Toews: My departmental staff will answer that more fully, but I would like to make the point that we not only have to balance the right of individuals to speak in their workplace in the official language of their choice, we also have to be assured that the people asking for services receive those services in the language of their choice. That becomes not only an inside-government balancing act, but a balancing act between the people you are serving and the public servants in offices.
For example, there are a number of federal agencies in my hometown of Steinbach, Manitoba, and they meet the qualifications of the bilingual office very well. They can serve people in French and English. However, they cannot serve people in some of the languages they actually speak, such as German, Low German and Russian. Those people have to go to an MP's office to get service in their language.
I am not saying that people should not be entitled to speak French or English in their offices, but we must remember that the primary function of a government office is to deliver services to the people in the communities. Those are the issues that we must balance.
I assume that in that context, we can look into making things more permanent, and that this ad hoc system has been established because it balances inside-government language rights and the language rights of those who expect services from the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: I would like to add to that answer. Unless the issue involves the possibility of amending the act, we will abide by the guidelines established under Part V of the Official Languages Act, because that is what is at issue.
It must be noted that communications and services are not issues which have been raised in the case of the Tourism Commission, which you brought up. There is no doubt that the public will continue to receive the same services and the same rights as before. At issue is the language of work of employees. The language of work of employees falls under the responsibility of the president of the Treasury Board Secretariat. The president carries out his responsibilities with the help of the Human Resources Management Agency of the Public Service Commission of Canada. To find out what could eventually replace the principle of application which you referred to, you might have to ask the president of the Treasury Board Secretariat that question.
Senator Tardif: I have a supplementary question. You are perfectly right, Part IV was protected by virtue of the service offer with the Canadian Tourism Commission, which has now moved to Vancouver. However, Part V, which is also a part of the Official Languages Act, guaranteed employees in a bilingual region the right to work in the language of their choice. But this guarantee does not exist anymore when the decision is made to move an administration to a unilingual region.
Within the scope of your broader responsibilities concerning all departments, under the Action Plan on Official Languages, will your department play a greater leadership role with the other departments to make sure that Part V of the Official Languages Act is upheld? As far as the application of the act is concerned, for instance, do you see a connection between Part IV, Part V and Part VII?
[English]
Mr. Toews: As the minister giving direction to the department, one thing that will guide me in my decisions to ensure that people are able to speak in one of the official languages is the work that I did as a provincial justice minister. We established the centre in Saint-Pierre and worked with the Commissioner of Official Languages and the RCMP to ensure that RCMP officers were able to speak French and English. That happened in what is now my federal riding.
In addition to legislative requirements, I have been guided by Judge Chartier's comments in ``Above all, common sense.'' Judge Chartier's recommendations in that report not only assisted in the development of minority language services in the province of Manitoba, but also assured public servants of their rights with regard to official languages.
We must apply the law always within the law, but with a degree of flexibility. I recommend the Senate committee read Judge Chartier's report. I believe that report is a good example for other provinces struggling with the issue of minority language rights and how to ensure that all aspects of the law are complied with.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: I would like to come back to another aspect of your question, which is the role of the Department of Justice. I will speak in general terms and will not refer specifically to this file, because certain issues are protected due to the confidentiality of the advice we offer our clients.
You realize that, within the framework of accountability and coordination in the area of official languages which was adopted by the action plan of 2003, my group, which is the official languages group, received a new role, which is more proactive compared to the normal way the department operates.
Sometimes issues are raised before a parliamentary committee. We will tell you about them in the course of our meetings. When complaints are reported in the media and when the office of the commissioner publishes reports, we collect the information and, to the best of our abilities, try to be proactive with our client departments to tell them that certain problems have been detected and to ask them to look into the matter. In such cases, there is indeed a connection between the development of minority communities, the language of work and the language of service. In such cases, we can refer to Part IV and use the fact that bilingual employees are hired to provide services to the public as a lever, which will have a positive impact on community development.
By moving a federal institution into a minority language community, you are also creating certain positive effects for the public.
More children, those of federal employees, attend local schools, including minority language schools. More people benefit, including those who want to take advantage of the new situation or those who want to take advantage of minority language services.
I was recently in Atlantic Canada, and I was saying that the move of the veterans affairs department to Charlottetown, which happened a long time ago, seemed to have had positive effects. I was sharing my thoughts with people who live there and they immediately said that yes, absolutely, the move had very positive effects on the minority community.
Nevertheless, the employees who work there do not benefit from the rights conferred under Part V. However, the community certainly did benefit from the presence of this institution.
Senator Tardif: Are you recommending that regulations be created to frame everything through regulatory measures? Would this be a suggestion you would make, for instance, to the Treasury Board Secretariat?
[English]
Mr. Toews: Since the coming into effect of Bill S-3, officials within my department have been working closely with their colleagues from Canadian Heritage to ensure that appropriate briefings and advice are conveyed to senior officials and others responsible for official languages throughout government.
Our emphasis has been on providing federal institutions with the information they need to take the necessary measures to comply with the new requirements. I invite the committee to put further questions regarding a potential regulation under Part VII to the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for putting forth all regulations under the Official Languages Act, and to the Minister for Official Languages. We will provide the advice and they will give the political direction.
[Translation]
Senator Plamondon: In my opinion, as far as the Official Languages' Committee is concerned, our job is mostly to cover the French fact; it is never to defend English as a written or spoken language, since francophones in Canada, no matter where they are, are obviously the minority.
A little earlier, my colleague talked about judges and appointments. I just wanted to add to the subject by saying that if we want a government to provide services in both languages, we will have to clearly state that it is absolutely necessary to include French in any competition for a position in the public service. If that message is not clear, we will never have enough French-speaking candidates.
Most of the time, when there are bilingual candidates, they are mostly francophones who speak English. Of course, there must be exceptions, but that is the prevailing situation. Of course, we are not referring to any other language, because we are talking about official languages, namely English and French. But if we accept English, since English is spoken everywhere within government, we also have to talk about French. As Minister of Justice, what do you intend to do to improve the situation?
[English]
Mr. Toews: In respect of the English minority in a particular province or a French minority in English-speaking provinces?
[Translation]
Senator Plamondon: Choose which one you prefer, or address both; either way, it should be interesting.
[English]
Mr. Toews: First of all, I do not believe in establishing quotas. I believe in ensuring that there are adequate services as mandated by the Constitution in respect of those who require services in a minority language situation.
That comes out of many years of experience in the Manitoba situation, where we have achieved a good balance. We have been able to do it in a way that does not antagonize the various groups inside Manitoba.
I do not want to just talk about what a great province I come from — because I do. I feel that Madame Senator would agree with what a great province Manitoba is. The point is that we need to be flexible in terms of how we provide those services and in ensuring that those needs are met.
When I received the briefing on this particular file, I was given much information about the steps that we are taking to ensure that francophone lawyers, for example, in English-speaking provinces are, in fact, being supported. We talked about a hundred various projects, and Madame will respond to that more fully.
We have had a variety of projects in English-speaking provinces, and at the completion of that portion of that briefing, I asked my staff, ``What about the English-speaking lawyers in the province of Quebec or in another area that is predominantly French?'' They did respond, and they identified for me certain challenges and issues in that context. Perhaps I could turn that over to you.
[Translation]
Senator Plamondon: Again, in your capacity as Minister of Justice, do you have a plan or particular priorities?
[English]
Mr. Toews: I believe that my responsibilities are both legal and constitutional. To implement those, I have instructed my staff to ensure that those services are provided as required by the law and by the Constitution.
If my staff is not clear about that, I will make that statement here very directly. However, I have been most pleased with the initiatives that the department has taken. I have stated twice on the record that I do not believe in imposing quotas.
I will return to the earlier comment when you asked the supplementary question to Senator Comeau's question: When individuals reach a certain level, should they not all be required to be bilingual? That is an interesting proposition. Certainly, I would not qualify for my position if that were the requirement.
Let us look at situations in which we are talking about the non-elected public service, and specifically, the situation of the Supreme Court of Canada and the appointment of Mr. Justice Rothstein.
I do not believe that Mr. Justice Rothstein would call himself bilingual. I listened to his French during his inauguration ceremony, and even I, with a very limited grasp of the language, understood that it was not the strongest French. Yet I would not disqualify Justice Rothstein from sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada on that basis because I believe he brought other qualities that were highly important.
I would be most concerned if we said every Supreme Court of Canada judge must be fully bilingual in English and French. I believe that there are other arrangements in the system that can support Justice Rothstein in ensuring that he does an exceptional job, which I know he will.
I would say the same for other levels of civil and public servants. There are supports within the system, whether it is French language training or other types of support. We should not disqualify people simply because they speak only one of the official languages.
If I can just generally say this: Provide them with the required supports to deliver the services needed by the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Ms. Duchesne: I would like to add something to what Mr. Toews has just explained. In the course of my presentation, I mentioned that I managed the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund. Among the projects we finance, we work very closely with people from the French-speaking legal community throughout Canada. These legal experts are not necessarily francophones; their mother tongue may be English, but they are interested in the French fact throughout Canada.
Of the projects we supported with the help of our governmental and non governmental partners, there are training activities for many members of the legal community, and the training is not only in the area of language, but also in the area of the law. I think you would be surprised to see how many anglophones have become bilingual, who participate in these activities, and who wish to work in both official languages. As regards the French Language Professional Development Institute for bilingual Crown prosecutors, we have English-speaking participants from Alberta, Manitoba, certainly, but also from British Columbia, who know enough French to enrol in these training activities.
I might add that, year in year out, more than a hundred French-speaking legal professionals graduate from faculties of law in this country; not all of them are necessarily francophones. Very often they are anglophones who are interested in practising law in French.
So throughout the country, quite a number of things are done to attract francophone lawyers, as well as French- speaking ones who are interested in practising law and providing legal services in French, even if their mother tongue is English.
The Chairman: I would like to remind honourable colleagues that time is running out. The minister will be leaving us in about 10 minutes, and there are still three senators who would like to ask questions.
Senator Robichaud now has the floor, followed by Senator Tardif.
Senator Robichaud: Minister, I would like to discuss the decision that was brought down by the New Brunswick Federal Court of Appeal; it dealt with a lady who had complained because she was not able to communicate in French with an RCMP officer who stopped her on the Trans-Canada Highway, in the English-speaking part of the province.
She won her case in court; it was appealed and the decision was reversed, because it is up to the province to specify what services are required from the RCMP.
I am sure that when the next contract is signed with New Brunswick — and will that be up to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness? — you will ensure that there is a clause stating that services must be provided in both languages. Might I remind you that New Brunswick is a bilingual province? If the province did not think it was necessary to require that service, perhaps the federal government should make a point of reminding them. But that is another matter.
Here, in a release from L'Acadie nouvelle, there are comments by the President of the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick that are critical of the way in which the Federal Court of Appeal published its decision.
The Federal Court of Appeal proceedings were only in French, but the decision was provided in English only. We were told that it would take from six to eight weeks for the translation. This demonstrates a lack of sensitivity.
If that is indeed the case, then it is indeed most inconsiderate. Are you aware of the situation? Do you think that this is acceptable for us as Acadians? That a decision be rendered in English when the case was heard in French? I do not understand.
[English]
I am not blaming you, Mr. Minister, for that.
Mr. Toews: I will allow Mr. Tremblay to answer that. Though I am familiar with the case, I was not familiar with that aspect of it. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Of course, as you said, if that were the case, then it would have to be corrected. But in fact, that is not what happened. The Federal Court and the Appeal Court are subject to the provisions of section 20 of the Official Languages Act which requires that decisions be tabled in French and in English in certain circumstances, otherwise, the decision can be published in one language with a translation to follow as soon as possible.
In this particular case, the error was purely administrative. The decision was available in both official languages when it was made public by the court, by three francophone judges sitting on the Federal Court of Appeal. But the clerk who sent the copy of the decision to the parties, on Thursday, I believe, did so initially in English only, and it was a lawyer from the justice department, the federal prosecutor, who was the first one to advise the Federal Court of the error, which was then quickly corrected on Monday morning.
So, we do keep a close eye on this type of thing and in this case it was an administrative mistake. The decision is now available on the Federal Court of Appeal website in both languages and it was issued simultaneously in both official languages, signed by the bench in its original bilingual version.
Senator Robichaud: I am confident that you will take pains to ensure that a similar situation will not reoccur. It leaves a bad taste, even if the fact that those copies were not provided was the result of a mistake.
Mr. Tremblay: The relationship between the justice department and the courts is a rather special one. We have no control over the actions of the courts, but now that the matter has been raised, and our prosecutor has reminded the clerk of his responsibilities, I don't think the same mistake will happen again.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you.
The Chairman: A short question, Senator Tardif?
Senator Tardif: Minister, you recommended that we read the Chartier report which contributed to a gradual, step by step development of French-language services in Manitoba. However, according to certain minority-language communities as well as some provinces, the approach does have its shortcomings.
Should your government and your department not take a more proactive approach in supporting the development of official languages?
[English]
Mr. Toews: I understand clearly that the document that Judge Chartier wrote was in a different constitutional and legal context. There is clearly a bilingual context here that is much more expansive than the situation in Manitoba. However, I think some of the practical concerns and issues are worth considering in the development of any delivery of services in both official languages wherever we are in the country.
While I would not suggest that we adopt a lower standard than is required by the law and by the Constitution, some of Judge Chartier's insights in terms of how one implements this on a practical basis to ensure that it is done in a timely fashion are of note and worthy of reading. However, I am not suggesting that somehow, because the report was written in a different legal and constitutional context, we now, as federal officials, adopt that different standard than the one that is mandated for us.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Can you tell us if you have started working on renewing the Action Plan for Official Languages?
[English]
Mr. Toews: I am sure my department is working hard at whatever they are supposed to be working at.
[Translation]
Ms. Duchesne: With respect to the Chartier report model, I can tell you that various jurisdictions are currently reviewing and certainly adjusting a number of models to the needs of the various francophone communities throughout the country.
Second, with respect to the action plan renewal, as you know, all federal programs currently have a five-year life span. Most other departments are currently working on a summative evaluation of the program that was part of the action plan. There are, of course, already some findings relating to what has been accomplished and to the support that has been provided in recent years.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Minister, I would like to welcome you here and compliment you on the work that your department does on French training for judges. However, I respectfully say that that is a little too late.
I know you cannot answer this today, but I would like you to reflect on the creation of a culture of having a French- speaking bar, so in the future we can have bilingual judges. I come from British Columbia, and I would like you to consider a pilot project whereby we look at training lawyers even before they become judges so we have a bigger pool of bilingual lawyers.
In my province we had a very good judge, Justice Paris, who has now resigned. I may be wrong, but I believe there are not strong judges who are as bilingual as he was. As you know, it is mandatory when a person asks to be tried in French for the trial to be provided in French. That is just the first step, however. Perhaps the judges are knowledgeable, but we also need the defence lawyers to be knowledgeable. I would like you to please reflect on this, and perhaps in a few months we can talk about how to start building that, so in the future we have bilingual judges.
Mr. Toews: That is a good point, but I think my department is already going down that road. According to the briefings that I have obtained from the department, some of the projects are to help francophone Crown attorneys who work in isolated situations to build bridges with other francophone lawyers to strengthen their French legal skills. That is one example.
Senator Jaffer: You do have a good program, but that is just part of it. We also need the defence bar to become knowledgeable — and I do know for a fact that you have a good program for prosecutors. However, we need both sides to be strong.
Ms. Duchesne: I would like to add that we are working also with defence lawyers and other people within the justice system.
We are also helping the association of French-speaking lawyers of British Columbia with some training, and it is working well. I know bilingual defence attorneys in British Columbia are difficult to find, but we are working with them to try to find a solution.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Minister, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for having taken the time to meet with us this afternoon. The justice department, your department, is essential to the development and growth of official- language minority communities, mainly because, our statutes, regulations, and procedures are your department's responsibility and the cornerstone for all development within Canada. I am happy to see that you are well aware of this responsibility — which, of course, comes as no surprise to me, but it pleases me, nonetheless.
Thank you very much, and thanks also to the staff who are with you here today.
[English]
Mr. Toews: Thank you very much. I do not believe I have ever attended a committee that was quite this polite. It is my first appearance in the Senate, so perhaps that is the norm for the Senate.
Thank you for being patient with me. I am a relatively new minister, but I rely heavily on my staff. My staff are quite expert and have assisted me in bringing forward some of our ideas and positions.
The committee adjourned.