The language trial amendments were the object of many discussions. As I mentioned, there were studies by the commissioner that highlighted a certain number of areas that needed improvement. Many of the proposals here are direct responses to those.
To provide you with the most information possible in the shortest time, I think it's fair to say that these amendments are part of a balancing process. On the one hand there is the drive to constantly improve the justice system with respect to access to justice in both official languages, and many of the proposals go in that direction. On the other hand, there are efficiency questions as well as practicality questions that arise interjurisdictionally. The provinces, in some respects, had reservations with some of the proposals being put forward. To take one example, which the committee will very likely hear from the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Fraser, when he appears, there has been pressure to extend the language-of-trial provisions to appeals. The jurisdictions essentially responded that they are unprepared and unable to provide for access to criminal trials on appeals in both official languages because that would require bilingual appellate courts.
It has been an issue of giving the provinces some assurances in terms of greater efficiencies and benefits in the process, as well as advancing the interest of access to justice in both languages in a balanced fashion.