Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to give our perspective on these topics. There are many of them, so I beg the indulgence of the committee to grant me a few minutes to go over them.
On the question of automatic translation of indictments, I would refer the committee back to what Minister Nicholson indicated. This is essentially a technical no-hassle type of bill. It was very much sold to jurisdictions on that basis. I think that's an important consideration in matters of administration of justice; we have to remember that while Parliament legislates, the provinces deal with the consequences, and any pressures or additional constraints we put on them may limit their ability to implement the provisions we're dealing with.
The way the automatic translation issue is dealt with in the bill corresponds with what the case law in one jurisdiction in Ontario has stated to be the correct interpretation of the code, which is that a translation of the charging or indicting document will be provided to the accused upon his or her request. The bill ensures clarity in that respect by making it apparent on the face of the code provision, so that it can apply in all 10 jurisdictions instead of simply in Ontario--and in New Brunswick, where I understand it has also been the practice to do so.
To provide equal worth or equality or value to the translated document is, in our opinion, not desirable. The original document corresponds in many jurisdictions to the constitutional right of the person who writes that indictment or charging document to use his own official language. All Canadians are not.... It was never the intent of the Official Languages Act or the official languages program of the Government of Canada to insist that every Canadian, or a large proportion of Canadians having access to public jobs, be bilingual, so we have to be cognizant of their right.
As well, by introducing translation, you introduce errors. You introduce the potential to debase what the true act of accusation is and the potential for more rights of appeal. In our view, it's important to maintain certainty in the criminal justice process while giving the accused something that helps in promoting his use of either official language in the criminal justice system.
On the issue of the use of languages, in the case that the judge makes orders with respect of the witnesses or in the context of bilingual trials, we believe--and the case law certainly indicates this to be the case--that the proper interpretation of the judge in the context of a subsection 530(1) order will always be to put the right of the accused, which is unchanged here, to a trial in his or her official language of choice at the forefront of the considerations that the judge will take into account.
We don't believe this needs to be spelled out in any greater detail than it already has been. This was not always the case, but certainly the recent case law bears that out.
The change of venue, which is the section 531 issue, I believe I've dealt with sufficiently.
I'm not sure if this covers the whole gamut. I'd invite committee members to think of it as one step, a balanced step, with various considerations--the jurisdictions' ability to move forward, as well as our ability to barter a certain number of advances in the process with considerations of efficiency in the justice system.