Okay. I think it's a different letter.
I'll just quickly mention these concepts, and then hopefully we can discuss them later.
The first one is that under proposed subsection 530(6), they don't want a trial necessarily automatically to be bilingual. There may be circumstances...so they want the word “may”.
Under proposed subsection 530.01(1), they want the stuff automatically translated for the accused--he doesn't have to ask for it--and also the original document and the translated to be of equal value. One language doesn't prevail.
Under proposed paragraph 530.1(c.1), they want to make sure that the prosecutor doesn't have a witness speaking another language...or only if it's warranted. To qualify that a bit more, they don't want them to use too much discretion.
Under proposed section 530.2, once again the justice can limit the right of the accused to a trial in his language, or a bilingual trial. They just want to make sure once again that this is qualified so that they have to, as much as possible, respect the right of the accused to have the trial in their own language.
Under section 531—and I'm not sure about this, but I'm going to ask them about it when they get here—they want it not to have to be in the territory in New Brunswick; it could be in another territory if the court isn't available.
The final one is that just because a judge or a jury speaks the other language, the language of the accused, it doesn't mean they're going to use it. So they want to qualify proposed paragraphs 530.1(d) and (e) so that not only do they speak the language but it's reasonably possible that they use it.
I can give you a copy of these amendments. You don't have to write everything down.
Some of these amendments sound very reasonable. Hopefully you'll be able to convince the people that they are reasonable. And we'll be having those people as witnesses.