LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 16, 1999

• 1536

[Translation]

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome— Missisquoi, Lib.)): The Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages is meeting today pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(b) and is continuing its examination of official-languages policies and programs.

We have invited representatives from the Quebec Bar today. I welcome the Bâtonnier, Mr. Jacques Fournier, and Ms. Carole Brosseau, Legal Counsel at the Research and Legislation Service, to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.

We are ready to hear your presentation.

Mr. Jacques Fournier (Bâtonnier of the Quebec Bar): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would briefly like to draw your attention to the fact that some excellent jurisprudence is being made daily in Quebec. Since we have at large francophone majority, most of it is of course rendered in French. It appears that in a number of provinces, the language barrier is preventing this excellent case law from being distributed and influencing jurisprudence in the rest of Canada, even though Canadian jurisprudence from the anglophone provinces is distributed widely in Quebec, is used there and serves as inspiration to our Quebec judges.

We are here to focus on this question. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages or another entity with the necessary funds could have this case law translated in order to ensure greater unity, primarily in the decisions in federal law and also in criminal law, and in order that Quebec case law might be of use elsewhere, as Canadian case law is in Quebec.

As you know, we are in the midst of a widespread technological revolution and case law, like all kinds of other information, will soon be distributed freely on the Internet. I believe that our proposal would be very useful to the Canadian legal community as a whole, and consequently to the public at large.

If you have any technical questions on statistics or other such areas, Ms. Brosseau has a good deal of documentation and would be pleased to answer your questions. I would also be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Mr. Fournier.

Let's start right away with our colleague, Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Theoretically, I feel that your request is fully warranted. However, in terms of application, your proposal seems to be somewhat complex; perhaps it's because a lawyer wrote it. I have some questions about the discretionary part and the selection of the decisions that would be translated. I presume that nearly all of the judges in Quebec are bilingual and can read English case law.

• 1540

On the other hand, in the other provinces the reverse is true: most of the judges are unilingual Anglophone and don't concern themselves with the decisions made in Quebec. The ideal solution would be to have everything published in both French and English at the same time, if we really are a bilingual country with two cultures. Today in the House, the Minister even talked about two founding peoples. If we really are, we should be equal. It seems that you should be calling for all decisions to be published in both languages, from coast to coast. Why don't you do that?

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: It is clearly a matter of money. In Quebec, we can use decisions from the other provinces, from other jurisdictions. You are quite right in saying that in an ideal world, all the decisions made in Canada should be published in both languages. But for the time being, from a practical viewpoint, I can say that our judges, like our attorneys, can easily take inspiration from English case law and are doing so, although the reverse is not true. It's a purely practical matter.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Aren't you afraid of sanctioning the widespread idea in Canada and Quebec that francophones must be bilingual while anglophones do not need to be? You say that in your mind, it isn't serious, it's a question of money, that you speak English and understand the decisions handed down in English in the other provinces, that you don't ask the others to make an effort and that you suggest having the main decisions translated for them.

I find you're being too easygoing. You are not defending your rights and insisting that this country must respect you and do everything in both languages, because that's what it's preaching in its official statements.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: Let me go to your other question. The decisions to be translated would not be chosen on the basis of language, but rather, would be chosen as is normally done in case law. An editorial committee would determine whether the decision is of interest in terms of case law. Many decisions are handed down and are done well. Although they may generate a good deal of interest, they are not necessarily of general or even specific interest. When selecting decisions, you must first use legal criteria.

In response to your other question, I'm not here to claim any right, I'm here to point out that we are producing some excellent decisions and I am proud of Quebec's body of case law. I'm here to say that we do things well, and I wish to give others the opportunity to benefit from our efforts.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Right now they are not benefiting.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: If you want me to bang on the table and demand that all our rulings be translated into English, I can do so, but I'm living in a practical world. Even if I did that, I wouldn't be very far ahead. The problem is that our jurisdiction is not well understood. Let us make it better understood. That's the point that I am here to make.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Can I end my remarks?

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We'll get back to you a bit later.

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): Thank you for appearing before our committee. It is always interesting to hear from representatives of the Quebec Bar, the Bar of another province or the Canadian Bar. At the risk of being accused of partisanship, let me say that I feel it is important to hear the opinions of legal and other experts.

I would like to comment on what was just said. The Quebec courts apply the Civil Code and the Quebec laws, but we must bear in mind that a very large part of their work has to do with federal law. At the federal level, of course, everything is bilingual. Section 2 of the Official Languages Act stipulates that English and French must be on an equal footing. So I see no difficulty in translating the decisions involving federal law, Canadian law.

• 1545

We must also bear in mind that the Quebec Civil Code is written in both languages and is applied by the Quebec courts and, obviously, by the federal courts, led by the Supreme Court. So I don't see any problems there.

I support your idea of translating the most important decisions. That to me is a satisfactory criterion. I feel that it is more important to publish principles of law on the Charter of Rights, the Constitution, the Quebec Civil Code and other such subjects, rather than subjects that lend themselves less to Appeal Court or Supreme Court appeals. At that level I agree with you that some discretion is needed.

However, I do agree with Mr. Plamondon that ideally, all the decisions should be in both languages. However, we must realize that some provinces are officially bilingual, while others do not. At the federal level, it's fine; the principle is quite clear.

You tell me that you're guided by two principles, the first being the importance of the matter judged. I agree. Perhaps we cannot translate everything, but we must nonetheless aim at a very broad translation effort. Second, if you agree that a special effort needs to be made for federal law, Canadian law, which applies equally in the 10 provinces, I do not feel that there should even be a distinction at that point, because it applies generally. For example, the Supreme Court refers in its decisions to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In criminal matters, it refers to Quebec provincial courts, as is the case for the other provinces. At that level I agree with having as much scope as possible.

Now who should pay for this? Is it up to us to decide? Clearly, as with federal law, Ottawa must pay a large part of the bill. Canada has two systems, the Civil Code and common law. It's one of our great resources, in my humble opinion. We have the world's two most widely used legal systems. I completely agree that we should make an effort to translate our decisions.

I would like to ask you the following question: Do you think it would be very difficult to make choices, or should we try to translate everything, if possible?

Mr. Jacques Fournier: I don't think it would be useful to translate everything. To begin with, some decisions are handed down in English.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: In Quebec, the courts often render the decision in the language of the losing party.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It's easier to take.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: It helps them understand the decision better.

Secondly, some decisions, with all due respect to those who make them, are of no interest to the community at large.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I would rather have you say that than me.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: Let me point out that they are very well rendered and are of interest to the parties.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Of course.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: But I don't think they set a precedent or would be worth disseminating to the community at large.

Like you, I agree with Mr. Plamondon that in an ideal world everything would be translated, but I am here to tell you that we have some good case law and we would like to export it. That's why I am here today. I repeat that in an ideal world, of course, everything should be in both languages.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: We have two legal systems, and on the Supreme Court, we have three judges out of nine, which clearly indicates that it's the basis of our Canadian system. That's one more reason to have the principles pertaining to civil law translated into English. People are always afraid that the common law will influence the Civil Code, but often the reverse is true; the Civil Code frequently influences the common law, and in a very beneficial way.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator Beaudoin. Senator Robichaud is next.

• 1550

Senator Louis J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.): I'm a little confused about the decisions by the Quebec Superior Court. If they are relevant to case law, are they automatically translated into both languages?

Mr. Jacques Fournier: The Quebec Superior Court is the court of first instance.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Yes, the Superior Court, not the Supreme Court.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: I know that the other jurisdictions have a Supreme Court, and I wanted to be sure that we were talking about the same court.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Of course.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: The Quebec Superior Court renders its decisions primarily in French because it serves a francophone population. The decision to translate a ruling or not does not depend on the interest of the ruling.

Senator Louis Robichaud: But the court—

Mr. Jacques Fournier: But the translation is done automatically at the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court. When the Quebec Superior Court, for example, is called upon to rule on the Bankruptcy Act or the Criminal Code, the ruling is not systematically translated, hence the barrier against exporting it to other jurisdictions.

Senator Louis Robichaud: What percentage of the decisions of the Quebec Superior Court are relevant to case law, and what federal agency, or perhaps what Quebec provincial agency should be mandated to do the translation?

Ms. Carole Brosseau (Legal Counsel, Research and Legislation Service, Quebec Bar): Two things must be considered when you talk about relevance. First of all there is the translation. As Mr. Fournier said a moment ago, the decisions are rendered in English or French in the Quebec Court, the Superior Court and the Appeal Court. Thus there are decisions both in English and in French.

You can get a translation of decisions if one of the parties requests it, and that does happen. But the decisions are recorded in the language in which they were rendered, be it French or English. You will find these decisions in the law reports.

When you talk about relevance—and that is the purpose of the first part of your question—you must asses the usefulness of case law for legal experts and other people throughout Canada. Let me give you an example. With a review, there always is a committee that assesses the relevance of the tests submitted. You can do the same with decisions. For example, a team consisting of university professors and people working in the field, both in defence and prosecution if you are dealing with criminal law, could assess the value of decisions made in the course of the year. University professors in particular look at all the decisions made at all jurisdictional levels, including the Quebec Court, the Superior Court and the Appeal Court. They decide whether a decision is useful to the legal community and it can then be translated.

Not all decisions are equally relevant. Sometimes a decision benefits only the parties, but at other times it can benefit the whole community in terms of knowledge and the advancement of law. These criteria would make it possible to determine whether one decision should be translated rather than another. I don't know whether I have explained it clearly.

Senator Louis Robichaud: It's still a little obscure. Shouldn't the Canadian Bar Association be responsible for translating, printing and distributing interesting decisions handed down by the Quebec Superior Court?

Mr. Jacques Fournier: The legal publishing market is one which—

Senator Louis Robichaud: It isn't a paying proposition.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: On the contrary, it appears to be quite lucrative. In any case, it is very expensive.

Senator Louis Robichaud: That's interesting.

• 1555

Mr. Jacques Fournier: Dissemination can also pose a problem. I do not see how the Canadian Bar Association, a provincial Bar or even the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, which encompasses all the Bars, would have the resources to do that.

Senator Louis Robichaud: The problem has been identified, but I do not see a solution. I could not see the committee on official languages getting involved in translating and distributing Quebec case law, no more so than in decisions handed down in British Columbia or New Brunswick. Perhaps I am missing some information, but I do not see that happening.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: As a committee, you undoubtedly have the power to make recommendations to the appropriate authorities, perhaps the Department of Justice or another department like Heritage Canada, since strictly speaking, case law is part of our heritage, legal culture being one aspect of culture. This recommendation to the committee on official languages would help shed light on the problem with exporting Quebec case law which, I repeat, is excellent.

Senator Louis Robichaud: I have no doubt about that.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: To answer your initial question, in Quebec at least 19 out of 20 decisions are handed down in French. That reflects the make-up of the bench and of counsel. Most of the anglophones get by very well in French, and vice-versa. At first glance, I would say that 19 out of 20 decisions are rendered in French; that leaves one decision out of 20, or 5%, which is easily exportable and of equally good quality.

The problem is transporting our legal culture. We are raising this with the committee on official languages because this is a language issue.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Fournier.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator.

Ms. Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): Please excuse my total ignorance, but in your letter you talk about a project that is in the works. Where did it originate? Did it originate with the federal government, the administration or the bar? I think it is admirable, but where did it come from?

Mr. Jacques Fournier: The project originated with a member of this committee.

Senator Joan Fraser: A member of this committee?

Mr. Jacques Fournier: Yes, with the Chairman.

Senator Joan Fraser: Excellent. I have a better understanding now.

I agree to some extent with my colleague, Senator Beaudoin. Why limit this to decisions that are of a criminal nature?

Mr. Jacques Fournier: It is not limited to criminal decisions. It would primarily cover criminal decisions because unfortunately the vast majority of decisions deal with criminal matters.

Senator Joan Fraser: Yes, and the Criminal Code...

Mr. Jacques Fournier: The Criminal Code is federal legislation. The same interest exists in other cases. The first example I could give you is the Divorce Act. The second example, not necessarily in order of importance, is the Bankruptcy Act. Many federal acts and statutes are dealt with in these decisions, sometimes incidentally. Some elements of bankruptcy law might have to be incorporated into a civil law. In a family law decision, a good portion of it is covered by the provincial act, but another part might come under the Divorce Act, which is federal legislation.

Senator Joan Fraser: When you mention decisions of a criminal nature in your letter, you are not limiting it to that, it is a starting point.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: Yes.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: In the application of the Criminal Code, the Federal Court and the Superior Court do not have concurrent jurisdiction. Sometimes both courts have concurrent jurisdiction, but this jurisdiction is being exercised less and less by the Quebec Superior Court and more and more by the Federal Court. That is why we chose this example, but of course, especially in the context of two different legal systems, it affects all case law from Quebec that could be used. It has become clear that the Civil Code is not very well known in Canada. Knowing more about it would obviously be advantageous.

• 1600

Senator Joan Fraser: Along those same lines, I would like to stress that there are decisions handed down in English in Quebec that would warrant being translated into French.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: We have pointed that out.

Senator Joan Fraser: You mentioned it, but I would like to highlight it. I am thinking of a decision that I learned about in a previous life, when I was a journalist, a decision on a trial for libel. As you are well aware, that is very complex.

The decision that was rendered in English was a model. If all journalists had it in their office, less legal action would be taken for libel. But it is only in English; the trial took place in English because both parties were anglophone, as was the judge. Therefore, my francophone colleagues could not benefit from it. The summary was not enough. Because the logic behind the reasoning was so perfect, the entire decision had to be read.

I would certainly not want to leave the impression that all important matters in Quebec courts are dealt with in French.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: Oh, no, not at all.

Senator Joan Fraser: I know, I know.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Moreover, you raise an important point. Often, we often find comments in legal journals, for example, that are summarized in English and then published in their original version, in French, which makes them inaccessible to some, and vice-versa.

You also noted that a summary is not always enough. If lawyers just read the summaries... Sometimes the entire decision must be read, because even if the summary covers the essence of the decision, the entire decision is what enables a person to fully understand the logic that led the judges to reaching a particular conclusion.

That is why it is important to translate the decisions. Often, summaries in one official language or the other are circulated, but I think the decisions should be translated in their entirety. The difficulty or the danger, which we mentioned in our letter, would be to start translating the decisions into English and then ignoring the original French version. The original version should be respected and distributed.

That is why we gave the example of the Supreme Court law reports, or even the Federal Court reports, which contain both versions, the original and the translation.

Senator Joan Fraser: Thank you.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to add something to your first point, about where this idea originated.

This idea is similar to another proposed that is currently in circulation, which involves setting up an electronic library or a virtual library, which would give all legal experts in Canada access to all selected case law, although not to all case law.

Senator Joan Fraser: [Editor's note: Inaudible]... from the Supreme Court.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Precisely.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: That is correct.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Fournier.

Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I fully agree with what has just been said. However, if possible, I would like to ask the staff to do a bit of research and provide us with an update of the general situation in the country. In some jurisdictions and in some cases, decisions are translated. In other cases, the laws have just been translated, often with the assistance of the Canadian government.

Could we obtain in the near future an overview, not a detailed one, but...

A member: It has already been done.

Ms. Françoise Coulombe (Committee Researcher): The commissioner published a study on the equitable use of French and English in Canadian courts that deals with that issue.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No. What I am asking for...

Ms. Françoise Coulombe: The situation in each province is...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That is not what I am asking. Please let me finish, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to know what is currently happening in Canada at the federal and the provincial levels, with respect to the translation of decisions.

Then, if possible, I would like us to determine the order of magnitude of this request, because what we have here is nothing less than a request for financial assistance.

• 1605

It would be beneficial to have some idea of the magnitude of what is being requested, because that is always useful when it comes time to make decisions or recommendations. With those two pieces of information, I think that the committee could examine the possibility of making recommendations to the appropriate bodies.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): I'm going to ask the researchers to examine those two points and put the item on the agenda for a future meeting of the committee so we can see what can be done.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Acting Joint (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

Mrs. Finestone.

[English]

Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you very much. I'm sorry I had to come in late. I may have missed the question or the answer.

I'd like to know a couple of things, and I'll give you some background first. In doing a study of access and custody rights in the best interests of the child, one of the cases that was brought to our attention was that of a mother in Quebec, with a French-speaking lawyer, and a father, who had custody of the child, in British Columbia, with a French-speaking lawyer. The two of them had to appear before an English-speaking judge. The case in which the original decision was made on the division of these children—one for the mother and one for the father—had not been made available in English to the judge. The lawyers couldn't agree on how they should present the case.

I'm not going to go into all the details, except to say that here is a case of family law that also involved a question of property law and a number of other issues related to the Young Offenders' Act. They were working in what I consider to be an unfair judicial situation for both the parents and the judge.

I wonder, given the fact that this is a country that is declared bilingual, with two official languages, and given that we consider this a fundamental value for Canada, if there isn't an obligation for us to conceive of a mechanism that would make the reality of what we say we are become a “real” reality.

I ask the following—if someone else already proposed this, good, and I'll second the motion. What is to prevent the Canadian Bar Association, with the members of the Quebec bar association—so that you have all 10 provinces through their legal organizations—examine, three times a year, the judgments that have come out, pick those that they consider will have an importance for justices and legal counsel across the country and then present them to official languages, to the Department of Patrimoine, for proper translation?

Effectively, then, it would be the judges and the lawyers who have pleaded the case who, together, would pick those cases that could have a relevance. Then nobody in this country would be deprived of their rights or an enlightened decision, be they from Quebec, from Manitoba, from New Brunswick or from Vancouver, British Columbia. How would that work? Do you think that could be effective?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Fournier: That goes back to Mr. Plamondon's comment that in an ideal world case law could be distributed in both languages, regardless of its origin, and thus be more useful.

For the time being, our proposal is to make it possible for Quebec case law to be exported to other jurisdictions. But I certainly agree that we must also ensure that my francophone colleagues in Quebec who have difficulty functioning in English also have access to unilingual decisions. That broadens the scope of the normal, but I can only agree with it.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That is precisely my argument. If we have a country, coast to coast, and laws for all citizens, they should be respected and everyone should have access to all case law that can shed light on other cases or help judges make decisions or help lawyers argue their cases.

• 1610

British and American case law is used in many places. I hope that the same holds true in Quebec and that everyone has access to it. In Canada, we should have access to case law in both languages.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: We do have access, but in Quebec, when it comes from the English provinces, we only have access to it in English, except obviously, when the decisions are made by federal institutions.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: It doesn't matter whether you are an anglophone, a francophone, or an allophone, you should have access to decisions that could have a negative or a positive impact on your daily life, on your family or on the way you do business.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: Are you talking about decisions made during trials or decisions in terms of case law that can be used... I listened to your comments, but I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I am not a lawyer and I do not want to add anything to your suggestion, which is to turn to a group that is well informed and well educated that would examine and analyze the issue, make a diagnosis and then decide to pass on certain decisions to a body that would do the translation. In short, one group would be responsible for the content and the other, the container. Did I say that right?

Mr. Jacques Fournier: It's even better.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mrs. Finestone.

Mr. Louis Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I would like to reaffirm that the principle of justice rendered in both languages should be clear. If the Official Languages Act has teeth or really exists, then this absolutely must be accessible.

I do not know in any case what the cost would be. I do not know which body would be responsible for doing this. I think Mr. Bélanger asked that we look into the matter. How should the funding be granted and which federal agency would be responsible for this operation? I don't know the answer.

In any case, I think that following your visit, there should be some unanimity around the table about the need for a motion calling for every effort to be made to ensure that justice is rendered in both languages. Even though it is claimed that most judges in Quebec speak both languages, I'm sure that at times certain decisions are handed down without consultation of relevant case law in English because it did require too great an effort. At the same time, it is certain that most decisions are handed down without taking into account all the case law available in French. Yet it would be most worthwhile in both cases. As the Senator noted, we have the two greatest systems of justice in the world, the common law and the Napoleon Code, as it is referred to.

So I think that we should conclude together that not only do we support you but that your request does not go far enough. We have understood what you want and we want to give you more than what you are asking for.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: If you were a judge, I would tell you that this is the first time a judge ever told me that I'm not asking for enough.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I'm not hearing a criminal case.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Denis Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib): I find Mr. Plamondon's comments interesting, particularly since his desire for bilingualism in the Quebec legal system means that he is starting to understand that everything should take place in both languages, even in Quebec. I find that interesting. I see that as a result of all the time he spends with us, he's starting to show a certain degree of openness. I agree with you.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: [Editor's note: Inaudible]

Mr. Denis Coderre: To add my grain of salt, Mr. Fournier, I would say that there is a definite advantage to knowing more about court decisions in Quebec. I am not a lawyer, but I know enough about the situation to realize that in the field of case law Quebec has often been at the forefront. Whatever the language the decisions are written in, it is important for our colleagues from the other provinces to also have access to them.

• 1615

That demonstrates some openness and I think that in pursuing this objective, it is important to ensure that the people can meet each other. I am fully support your request. Of course, in a perfect world, everything should be available in both languages, but the mere existence of this accessibility would allow our colleagues in the other provinces to see the marvellous work being done in our courts. That in itself would be a significant step and very much appreciated.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Coderre.

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I think it would be possible to reconcile both points of view. I agree with you at the outset that since we have two legal systems that can go as far as the Supreme Court of Canada, which is the cornerstone, ideally everything should be bilingual. I have no problem with that.

However, when I reread the letter from the head of the Quebec Bar, which is very well written by the way, I come to the conclusion that we should perhaps establish the principle that everything that may be relevant from the point of view of jurisprudence should be available in both languages. It isn't necessary to translate a decision relating to a car accident, of interest to only two people, that is the plaintiff and the defendant. It's simply a matter of fact, the law is very clear and there is no jurisprudence.

In a country like ours, however, where there is a division of power between Ottawa and the provinces, ideally we should provide a translation of a criminal, civil, constitutional, administrative or other principle. Clearly, the Supreme Court will make reference to such principles in a decision. We must not forget that among the nine justices, there are six common lawyers and three specialists in civil law and they have obviously studied law in French, in English or in both languages.

I maintain that everything that may be relevant from the point of view of jurisprudence should be translated. That would not include a lawsuit for damages where the trial judge may grant $130,000 and the appeal court, $140,000. We can forget about that kind of thing, it is merely a matter of evaluation.

I would go along with the point of view of your letter and reconcile it with what Mr. Plamondon is asking for. I agree with the principle that everything that is relevant to jurisprudence should be translated. In my opinion, there is only one department that can do this, the Department of Justice, either the federal department or the provincial department, or both. The Department of Canadian Heritage does an excellent job, but what we are talking about here is justice. If anything can be described as legal, it is certainly common law and civil law, and that is why I would suggest that the responsibility be given to the Department of Justice. This translation could be subsidized and done at the provincial level or at the federal level. I won't get involved in that discussion. The important thing here is the principle. I'm glad to be here this afternoon. Our discussion has been very interesting. I don't know who had this idea but it's a very good one. I'd like to congratulate him or her.

An hon. member: It's Mr. Paradis.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Mr. Paradis? What a nice place to be!

Do you think that a decision to translate a ruling should be based on its relevance to case law, whether it be written in English or in French?

Mr. Jacques Fournier: I think that should be the criterion when choosing the decisions for translation. The choice would first be made on the bases of relevance, and then on the basis of language.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: There you would have some discretion.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: Yes.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: There would be a board with some discretion. Not everything could be translated, it would make no sense.

Mr. Jacques Fournier: An editorial board.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes, and without distinction. The decisions would also be kept in their original language.

Ms. Carole Brosseau: Mr. Beaudoin, I must admit that before taking this position, we consulted our members, who agreed in the case of the decisions and in the case of translation. As a matter of fact, they would prefer to have the decisions written in English translated into French but they do not expect much to be done about that since they have been making do with what they have at the present time. They agreed that the criterion of jurisprudential relevance should be considered and that not all decisions should necessarily be translated either from English to French or vice versa.

• 1620

It was a true consultation process. I think that if the same exercise were to take place throughout the country, lawyers in other provinces would agree that relevance is important.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: The University of Ottawa and the University of Moncton translated common law into French. It's an extraordinary achievement. I do not see why Quebec decisions written in French should not be translated into English if they are relevant from the point of view of jurisprudence. After all, French jurists may be quoted in court, just like British, American and English Canadian ones. If ever there were a field that is to be bilingual, it is the law. I consider that to be fundamental.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator Beaudoin.

Denis, a short question.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I'm sorry I missed the beginning of your answer. Have you had any reactions from the Quebec Department of Justice?

Mr. Jacques Fournier: No, I haven't.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Did you consult Quebec on this matter?

Mr. Jacques Fournier: No.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Is it your intention to do so?

Mr. Jacques Fournier: Yes, certainly.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): I might add that we have asked our researcher to look into two matters, namely the general practice being followed and the approximate cost of this measure. I think that Senator Beaudoin has made an excellent suggestion.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I was interested in knowing whether Quebec had reacted to this.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): I see. They may have referred the matter to the Department of Justice since it is more directly concerned than the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I'd be inclined to suggest the Department of Justice rather than the Department of Canadian Heritage because in that case public funds...

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We should perhaps have made this point before Mauril left, that might have reassured him a bit.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Any other comments?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: No, thank you.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We would like to thank you for your presentation. We shall attempt to follow up on this issue.

Committee members will now sit in camera to study the ninth report.

[Editor's note: The meeting continued in camera]