Law Times

Page 6 May 11, 2015 • Law Times www.lawtimesnews.com COMMENT Major gaps in bilingual court services s the Ontario Court of Appeal shines a light on the gaps in bilingual services in the court system, the Ministry of the Attorney General looks to be taking action on the issue in Ottawa. A pilot project in Ottawa will involve what the government is calling "an active offer" of services in French and support to French speakers "from the moment they enter the courthouse." Videocon- ferencing may also be available to provide French-language services remotely, according to the ministry. On the one hand, the ministry's efforts are a welcome develop- ment. On the other, it's clear there's still lots of work to do on the issue. Ottawa, of course, is the most logical place to launch such a proj- ect given the demographics there. But with the appeal court having shown how significant the gaps in bilingual court services are in its ruling in R. v. Munkonda last week, it's a wonder the government hadn't taken action like that sooner. Munkonda, in fact, was an Otta- wa case and it suggested a significant lack of francophone resources in the system there. For example, defence counsel's request for a bilingual court re- porter was unsuccessful and the preliminary inquiry judge gave an interlocutory judgment in English in response to a motion made by appellant Christian Munkonda, a francophone accused along with several anglophones, in French despite an agreement to have bilin- gual proceedings. Harper advances own political agenda as bill C-51 moves forward t began back in October of last year with two unprovoked horrendous and murderous attacks on Canadi- ans: one near Parliament in Ottawa and a second in Saint-Jean-sur-Riche- lieu, Que. The attacks shocked Canadi- ans. Following the attacks, Prime Minis- ter Stephen Harper presented himself as the leader who would save the country. It was an important declaration. The next general election was only a year away. By the end of January, Harper was ready with bill C-51. He didn't even introduce it in Parliament but instead chose a partisan rally in Toronto to bring it forward. Talk about partisanship. Who needed legal proof we were under attack? Two of our soldiers were dead. And we could forget about hold- ing a coroner's inquest let alone a public inquiry. Harper declared "a great evil has been descending over our world" and his ministers began talking about Canada being at war with the Islamic State group. The first polls showed 82 per cent of Canadians approved of the anti-ter- rorism law. Even Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau seemed in favour. After all, who wants to be soft on terrorism going into an election? But as the details came out, they showed that maybe the new legislation wasn't what it should have been and by late February, support had inched down to 72 per cent in some surveys. As opposition to the leg- islation gained momentum, the New Democrats began to feel more confident in their attacks. Slowly, others began to turn against bill C-51 as well. Four former prime ministers came out with their criticisms, for example. The report from the le- gal community had at least five former Supreme Court justices saying no and maybe another 20 or 30 respected law professors. And then it was a storm. Dozens and then hundreds of respected experts in law, university academics, bar associations, writers, and journalists all criticized the legislation. Critics have taken issue with a num- ber of the bill's provisions. Under the new legislation, for example, the Cana- dian Security Intelligence Service will have the power to jail people for up to seven days it suspects may be indirectly inf luencing somebody to commit terrorist acts. Several people noticed there was no proper surveil- lance of CSIS, something called "oversight" in spy talk. Countries such as the United States, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand all have proper oversight of their spy agen- cies. In Canada, that will be up to the Harper cabinet. The part about legislation to fight "threats to the security of Can- ada" included something called "inter- fering with the ability of the Canadian government to maintain economic or fiscal stability." What does that mean? Does it in- clude fixing the price of oil, playing with banking regulations or calling a strike? Even the opposition parties in the House of Commons spend a lot of time trying to interfere with all sorts of government stability. Another part of the law would al- low CSIS agents to "disrupt" what they feel might encourage terrorist activi- ties. So CSIS could jail suspects, search their homes, seize their computers, up- set their plans, and do all sorts of other mean things as long as they don't violate their sexual integrity. Other critics oppose a provision al- lowing for the collection of information on Canadians from as many as 17 dif- ferent government departments. What about our Charter of Rights and Free- doms? There's even a part that says au- thorities can violate the Charter if a judge asked for a warrant says it's OK to do so. Since when do judges sanction break- ing our laws, especially the Charter? The debate continued this spring with support sinking as low as 30 per cent. Last week, however, the debate ended as the Commons passed the con- troversial bill. After the Commons vote, there's still the Senate, but that should be no prob- lem. Royal assent should follow and bill C-51 should become law before the fall election. We'll t hen have to wait to see what the courts have to say about the legisla- tion when the inevitable legal challenges arise. LT uRichard Cleroux is a freelance reporter and columnist on Parliament Hill. His e- mail address is richardcleroux@rogers. com. ©2015 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written per- mission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, com- pleteness or currency of the contents of this pub- lication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 • ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $199.00 + HST per year in Canada for print and online (HST Reg. #R121351134), $199 + HST per year for online only. Single copies are $5.00. Circulation inquiries, postal returns and address changes should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact Keith Fulford at ........... 416-649-9585 or fax: 416-649-7870 keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com ADVERTISING Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Kimberlee Pascoe ...............................416-649-8875 kimberlee.pascoe@thomsonreuters.com Grace So .............................................416-609-5838 grace.so@thomsonreuters.com Joseph Galea .......................................416-649-9919 joseph.galea@thomsonreuters.com Steffanie Munroe ................................416-298-5077 steffanie.munroe@thomsonreuters.com Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Editor in Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gail J. Cohen Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glenn Kauth Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Yamri Taddese Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shannon Kari Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James Kang CaseLaw Editors . . Adela Rodriguez & Jennifer Wright Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alicia Adamson Production Co-ordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catherine Giles Electronic Production Specialist . . . . . . . Derek Welford Law Times Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON • M1T 3V4 • Tel: 416-298-5141 • Fax: 416-649-7870 www.lawtimesnews.com • LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes • LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes u Editorial obitEr By Glenn Kauth And it's not as if the issue is a new one. In 2012, a report from the French-languages services bench and bar advisory committee raised several con- cerns, including varying levels of French profi- ciency among Ontario's bilingual judicial officers and a lack of clear standards to identify who's a bilingual judge. Due to the lack of bilingual staff, many fran- cophones found themselves having to choose between coming back to court another day and proceeding in English, the report found. The Ottawa pilot project, in fact, is the part of the government's effort to implement a number of the recommendations in that report. That's a good thing, but if the gap in services is as wide as the re- port and Munkonda suggest, the government has a long way to go in making bilingual court services truly available where they're in demand across the province. — Glenn Kauth A The Hill Richard Cleroux I

• Cover