Justice committee  Good morning. I am pleased to appear before you again to help you continue your review of the language provisions in the Criminal Code. As you know, I appeared here on May 27, 2013, when the committee began its review. I would like to begin by introducing myself again. I am René

Justice committee  Mr. Doyle can perhaps add to my response. The issue of bilingual juries is one that has been raised recently, and the committee is currently working on it. However, this issue does not stem from the 2008 amendments. In certain jurisdictions, there have been concrete difficulties

Justice committee  Yes, that is correct.

Justice committee  Yes, indeed. It is true that not all issues are argued before the court, who would then hand down a decision. It was also useful for us to read the responses that you received from the provinces.

Justice committee  No, not really. In our view, these responses confirm that the implementation of the 2008 amendments has gone rather well. Certain issues were raised. And we can talk more in detail later, if you would like.

Justice committee  I will let Mr. Francoeur respond to part of this. I believe he mentioned a federal-provincial-territorial group that deals specifically with access to justice in both official languages. That is precisely the raison d'être of this committee. That is one way....

Justice committee  Six.

Justice committee  On the issue of....

Justice committee  I would like to address the issue of disclosing evidence. I think you mentioned, over and above the issue of the availability of interpreters and stenographers, a lack of resources to have disclosed documents translated. Saskatchewan mentioned the problem as well. I would like t

Justice committee  Yes. What I was going to say was that you're absolutely right. As the law now stands, only proceedings at the preliminary inquiry and trial are subject to the language of trial provisions of the Criminal Code. This being said, we know that in certain areas of the country, in s

Justice committee  I do. I remember seeing this letter, and in fact, if you look at the case law, it's not a problem. No, it's not a problem.

Justice committee  No, exactly.

Justice committee  No, the case law is pretty clear. When there's an order for a trial, whether it's a bilingual trial or a trial in the official language of the accused, the prosecutor and the judge must use that language almost exclusively. So it's not an issue. On the Ontario letter, we were q

Justice committee  I believe Alberta has not responded.

Justice committee  It kind of comes back to the question raised by your colleague. Bail hearings per se are not covered by sections 530 and 530.1. I was happy—