Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund

4. Evaluation findings

4. Evaluation Findings

This section of the report sets out the evaluation findings relating to each component of the Support Fund. The information is based on the set of research methods described in section 3.0.

4.1. Advisory Committees

The Department established a number of advisory committees to expand stakeholders' participation and capacity to take action in relation to justice in both official languages. As described in subsection 2.2.2 (page 6), they are the Advisory Committee–Justice in Official Languages, the Subcommittee on Access to Justice in Both Official Languages and the F-P-T Working Group on Justice in Both Official Languages. This subsection sets out the evaluation findings in relation to the activities of those committees, participation levels among their members and the relevance of their roles.

Activities of the Advisory Committees

The evaluation findings indicate that although the three committees met less often than initially intended, they provided a forum in which stakeholders could come together to discuss their needs and activities, to forge links and to develop opportunities for working together. These findings are discussed at greater length below.

To date, the Advisory Committee has, as intended, provided the leadership for the Support Fund's activities, and allowed its members to coordinate their efforts. The Advisory Committee has had two meetings since the Support Fund was established in 2003. At those meetings, the members had an opportunity to discuss needs, concerns and avenues to be explored in relation to access to justice in both official languages. The stakeholders who were consulted further noted that this cooperation between the Department of Justice Canada and the organizations that sit on the Advisory Committee provided them with a better understanding of the needs of official language minority communities and of the capacity of the Department of Justice to take action in respect of issues relating to the administration of justice in both official languages.

The access to justice subcommittee is seen as an excellent discussion forum where the various stakeholders working in the legal system and in community associations can get to know one another and network. The Subcommittee has met three times since the Support Fund was created. The meetings held to date have provided an opportunity to exchange information about access to justice in both official languages, the needs of the communities concerned, activities undertaken and avenues to explore in the future. As well, the Department uses the Subcommittee to inform members about activities undertaken by the Support Fund and to involve them in the management and future planning of the Support Fund. The evaluation findings indicate, however, that the large number of members and the full agenda at meetings sometimes makes it difficult to discuss each of the questions of interest in depth.

The F-P-T Working Group has met three times since the Support Fund was created in 2003.[11] Each meeting was preceded by a preparatory meeting of officials from the Support Fund and a few of the provincial/territorial representatives. This working group has given the provinces and territories an opportunity to get involved in access to justice in both official languages. The Working Group is in fact the main forum through which the provinces and territories can identify their (often similar) needs in relation to access to justice in both official languages, discuss best practices and develop common solutions. Opportunities to work on these together, such as the work done under the project carried out by the Institut de développement professionnel en langue française (Ontario), have often emerged through discussions within the Working Group.

Member Participation

The evaluation findings indicate that the leadership provided by the Department of Justice to date has resulted in good levels of participation from members of the three advisory committees.

In addition to discussions held during meetings of the three committees, there have also been informal discussions between meetings, particularly between Support Fund officials and certain committee members, and this has been welcomed by both sides. The discussions deal with specific questions that members have regarding the Support Fund or funding applications made by them.

While some networks have been formed as a result of the advisory committees' activities, it is observed that communication among the members themselves outside the formal channels has been more limited. This explains why, for some members, the committee meetings are still to a large extent the only opportunity they have to communicate with other stakeholders involved in access to justice in both official languages. This finding is explained in part by the fact that there is no coordination for this kind of discussion, but also because participants have little time and resources to devote to more extensive collaboration.

Another finding is that despite having an opportunity to participate in the Subcommittee's work, few representatives of the Anglophone community in Quebec have attended. This lower participation rate means that the Subcommittee's work seems to focus more on the needs of Francophone communities outside Quebec than on the needs of the Anglophone community in Quebec.

Clarity and Relevance of Roles

The Department of Justice has clearly established and documented the mandates and responsibilities F-P-Te Advisory Committee, the Subcommittee and the F-P-T Working Group. Given the context in which legal services are delivered and ongoing needs in relation to access to justice in both official languages, the roles of all three bodies continue to be relevant.

The mandate of each of the committees was submitted to its members and finalized with them. As well, descriptions of the mandates and responsibilities are set out in various documents and are presented again at the beginning of each annual meeting. Overall, therefore, the stakeholders in question have a clear understanding of the committees' roles. Nonetheless, because the committees' activities are generally limited to one meeting a year and there is constant turnover in the membership, members of the various bodies would benefit from additional communications from the Department of Justice. This would help to keep members up-to-date on activities relating to access to justice in both official languages and in contact with the subject matter, to some extent.

The evaluation findings also indicate that the three existing committees have made better coordination of stakeholders' actions possible. It was noted that access to justice in both official languages issues inevitably calls for participation from the legal profession, the community and government (provincial/territorial and federal levels). The three committees' activities have enabled the stakeholders concerned to better coordinate their efforts to meet the needs identified, particularly in relation to raising awareness among lawyers, in the communities and on the part of governments, and in relation to training for lawyers, developing legal tools and increasing the numbers of bilingual human resources within the justice system.

Through the participation of organizations representing lawyers, and of lawyers themselves, one result is that they can be informed about developments in language rights as they relate to access to justice and be made aware of the needs of OLMC members and the importance of providing justice services in their official language. Organizations that speak for the communities are also important participants, because they raise awareness in the communities about their language rights in relation to access to justice. Together, those organizations and organizations representing the legal profession do necessary work by pressuring government authorities on issues relating to access to justice in both official languages.

4.2. Core Funding for Lawyers' Associations

The Support Fund provides core funding for associations of French-speaking jurists and the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc. to increase their capacity to get involved in issues relating to access to justice in both official languages. The evaluation findings indicate that there has been widespread success in achieving this objective.

Funding Provided for AJEFs and the FAJEF

AJEFs and the FAJEF may apply to the Support Fund each year for core funding. The amounts granted to each association vary from year to year and the Department decides how funding is distributed based on recommendations from the FAJEF. In the Support Fund's first two years, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, six associations of French-speaking jurists and the FAJEF received core funding. The seventh AJEF, Alberta, had been inactive for several years and did not resume activities until the following fiscal year, when it received core funding from the Support Fund for the first time. This means that the seven AJEFs and the FAJEF received core funding for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. The amount each organization is given each year varies from $28,000 to $206,000, the average being $88,000.

Contribution of the Support Fund to AJEF and FAJEF Activities

The mandate of AJEFs and the FAJEF is to promote and defend the language rights of Canada's Francophone and Acadian communities by facilitating access to justice throughout the country. The core funding enables these organizations to consolidate their capacity to implement and manage projects relating to the delivery of legal and judicial services in French, to participate in meetings of various advisory committees, and to bring pressure to bear on various government authorities regarding the rights of Francophones in minority communities.

Core funding accounts for a major share of the funding received by AJEFs and the FAJEF. To date, on average, the resources provided by the Support Fund have accounted for 75 percent of the organizations' core funding. The situation varies, however, from one recipient organization to another. Some depend entirely on the Support Fund to operate, while for others the Support Fund resources represent only 24 percent of their core funding.

One of the most visible outcomes of the core funding is the creation of full-time executive director positions in all of the recipient organizations. This administrative stability means that AJEFs are able to focus on carrying out concrete activities associated with their mandates, such as providing training sessions, developing jurilinguistic tools, and holding awareness-raising activities—about language rights in the justice system and the services that are available—for the legal community, OLMC members and the general public.

In addition, core funding received by AJEFs from the Support Fund gives them an opportunity to build a variety of networks and partnerships. One outcome is that AJEFs participate in the activities of umbrella groups and/or regional, provincial and federal committees. This puts them in contact with stakeholders in the community, the legal system and government. Another outcome is that AJEFs are better equipped to approach provincial and territorial governments on the question of access to justice in both official languages.

The vast majority of French-speaking lawyers consulted in the survey believed that their AJEF promotes the use of French in the administration of justice, encourages the formation of networks of lawyers and raises community awareness of the use of French in the judicial system (see Table 4).

Table 4: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (n=160)
 

Strongly Agree

Agree
The association of French-speaking jurists to which I belong actively promotes the use of French in the administration of justice. 62% 30%
The association of French-speaking jurists to which I belong has established a network of Francophone jurists in my region. 49% 36%
The association of French-speaking jurists to which I belong increases awareness of the use of French in the justice system within the Francophone community. 44% 40%

Consultations carried out for this evaluation further show that the core funding given to French-speaking lawyers' associations and their federation gave them greater visibility in the communities, among their members and with governments, and thus enabled them to forge links with various stakeholders. The federal, provincial and territorial governments acknowledge that AJEFs have become important resources for their communities and credible pressure groups. As well, based on the survey of French-speaking lawyers, a majority of them have visited the Web site of the AJEF to which they belong (64%) and more than 9 out of 10 rate it as useful or very useful (see Table 5).

Table 5: Have you ever visited the Web site of the association of French-speaking jurists to which you belong? (n=160)
Yes 64%
No 31%
Don't know/no response 4%
If yes, how would you rate that site? (n=103)
Very useful 31%
Useful 64%
Not useful or no response 5%

More than half (55 percent) of the French-speaking lawyers consulted said that they had consulted or contacted their AJEF in the past. The main reasons cited for contacting the AJEF were:

The greatest challenge faced by AJEFs is that the core funding is not permanent so AJEFs depends on the Support Fund being renewed. This situation is unavoidable, however, because no funding of this nature can avoid being subject to a renewal process.

Relevance of Core Funding

The evaluation findings indicate that AJEF and FAJEF activities meet some of the needs identified in relation to access to justice in both official languages, including:

Logically, there is a connection between the core funding for AJEFs and the FAJEF and their capacity to undertake activities relating to those needs that continue to be current and relevant. According to the French-speaking lawyers surveyed, opportunities for networking, access to jurilinguistic tools and training, promotion of access to services in French and access to information about language rights are some of the main benefits of membership in an AJEF (see Table 6).

Table 6: In your opinion, what are the three main advantages of membership in an association of French-speaking jurists? (n=160)
Networking/support/conferences/information sharing 58%
Resources/tools/training 36%
Promotion of access to services in French 28%
Information about language/constitutional rights 21%

In addition, about 45% of French-speaking lawyers surveyed have participated in a professional development activity offered by their AJEF. The three main topics covered in the activity were:

Three quarters of the French-speaking lawyers were satisfied or very satisfied with the training provided.

The stakeholders consulted noted that consolidating the AJEFs and the FAJEF through the core funding does not reduce the importance of the role the federal government must play in making structural changes and significantly increasing access to justice in both official languages. In this regard, the associations expressed a desire for the federal government, and in particular the Department of Justice, to intensify its efforts to encourage the provinces and territories to take concrete action. The stakeholders noted, however, that the capacity of the Department of Justice to take action is limited as a result of the division of powers and the limitations of its financial framework, among other things.

Performance Measurement

In general, it is difficult to measure the performance of core funding, since the purpose of this type of funding is not to carry out a particular activity. AJEFs and the FAJEF use the core funding to sustain their operations, so that they are able to undertake activities relating to their mandates. Nonetheless, some associations measure performance based on the use of their services by members, informal discussions with their partners and the level of recruitment they have been able to achieve.

[11] All provinces and territories are represented in the working group, with the exception of Prince Edward Island. Although P.E.I. does not participate in the meetings, it has asked to be kept informed about what happens there.