Yes indeed, the provisions and proposed amendments would clarify the right of the accused. I should point out that this right is not constitutional in nature. It is a right which you, as parliamentarians, will confer upon the accused. During our consultations, not only with official language communities and the Commissioner for Official Languages, but also with Crown prosecutors who must effectively prosecute in the interest of public safety, we noted that it was important to them to obtain the best possible evidence in a country where there are bilingual individuals, people like myself, for instance, who could very well testify in either official language and take advantage of the situation. For instance, I could ask for questions to be put in the language of the trial, for instance English, and yet I could also ask for an interpreter. There is a period of time during which the interpreter interprets the information for me, giving me an opportunity to tailor my responses not in the interest of telling the truth, but based on my considerations as a witness.
Federal and provincial prosecutors saw this as an important issue. We should point out that this authority is granted to a judge in the context of ensuring the rights of the accused, which must be upheld. The judge must consider this factor, whether it would be appropriate to issue and order, and whether there has been sufficient debate on the issue between parties; he has the authority to issue this order.