Thank you.
I'm inclined to follow the advice of the department here. I can see conceptually how this provision could in some circumstances narrow the rights of the accused. I'm really cautious—and I'm referring to my remarks on a previous amendment—about monkeying with courtroom procedures on the fly.
Also, the way this amendment is worded imposes a statutory obligation in a criminal trial. As I interpret it, if a judge were to inadvertently make a remark that is not in the official language of the accused, it would be a statutory non-compliance with a right of the accused. That could overturn the whole trial. You could have an accused with a counsel whose official language is other than that of the accused. So you have one whose basic language is French, one whose basic language is English, and in the course of the trial a judge might be directing a remark at the counsel and inadvertently use the wrong language for two or three minutes. Nobody is prejudiced by it, but you have a circumstance that could result in the trial being overturned.
I'm going to be cautious. I'm not going to support this amendment the way I see it now.