Justice Committee on May 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We are now on clause 18. And that is Mr. Bagnell. I'll just make reference to Liberal amendment number 1.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have five amendments in the next four clauses. They're not amendments I thought up; they came from the witnesses. I think they're very minor points.

Basically, all five amendments make clear the wording to protect that the witness gets fair treatment in their official language. I'll explain each one as they come along, but I'm happy to hear what the witnesses have to say, and then the members can make their own opinions.

The first one, this amendment, only adds the word “may”, and that's the only difference. What the clause basically said before was that if there are witnesses who have different languages, then you have to have a bilingual trial. But a bilingual trial may not be the fairest in all cases; in fact, it may not be possible. You may not have bilingual prosecutors and judges, or it may prejudice one of the witnesses because most of the trial would be in the other person's language. So instead of saying you have to have a bilingual trial when you have witnesses, it says you “may” have a bilingual trial, because you may also have two unilingual trials if that turns out to be more practical or fair. It was suggested by two of our witnesses.

I'm happy to hear from the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Tremblay.

[Marc Tremblay]

In our view, that was the intent of the provisions, the amendments as drafted. If we look at the French version, it says:

"Constitue une circonstance[...]"

One of the circumstances that can justify a bilingual trial would be the situation where multiple accused are involved. So I think that goes, in the same sense, to the spirit of the motion.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

In the exact spirit of the motion.

[Marc Tremblay]

Yes, exactly.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 18 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 19)

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We are now dealing with Liberal amendment number 2.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This clause basically allows the accused to have the documents that are charging him in his own language. In the big blank space in the middle, there used to be the words “on application by the accused”. The only other change is under proposed paragraph (a) in the second last line, where it says “automatically”. That word was not there.

Basically what this change does is this. Instead of the accused, who has a different language, having to go and apply to get things in his or her own language, it's automatically translated and given to them. So it took out the words “on application by the accused”, so you don't have to ask for it. Once it's been determined that the trial is going to be in your language, then you would automatically have the documents charging you. I think it's obvious and fair that the person should get them. They shouldn't have to go through the bureaucratic step of having to apply for them. This was also suggested by our witnesses.

I'm happy to hear from the department.

[Marc Tremblay]

Thank you.

I think we spoke to this during our appearance before the committee. There are basically three major principal objections to the amendment as moved.

The first is that the provinces were not consulted on such a concept. What we told them as we went about explaining the thrust of the bill is that it would bring about changes as already recognized in the case law and it would clarify the code. So the case law, as it currently stands, and the interpretation of the existing code provisions provide for a translation upon request. So this would be a financial burden of some consequence for the provinces if the amendment were adopted.

On the issue of equal value, we also spoke to that issue. We have in Canada a situation on the ground that the Commissioner of Official Languages himself points out regularly: there are so many millions of francophones who do not speak English and some many millions of anglophones in Canada who do not speak French. Among these people are police officers on the ground who write the original documents that are the key documents for the indictment, and they write them in the only language, in many cases, they can use. To provide the translated version of that originating document with equal status, in our view, introduces some uncertainties into the criminal justice system. It provides for additional arguments by the accused wherever there might be discrepancies, and it essentially would create what might be fairly described as additional loopholes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Go ahead, Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We were rather supportive of the first part. However, we were afraid that the second part of the amendment, "(2) The original version of a document and the translated text are of equal value", could be a subterfuge to allow for the delay of the beginning of proceedings in the case of inconsistent versions. I understand that Mr. Tremblay shares this opinion.

Should we not vote on only the first part of the amendment, and not on the second?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

One needs a subamendment to delete it.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I do not know if the mover insists on our keeping the second part of his amendment, which could result in delaying the start of the proceedings. We would like to vote on the first part of the amendment only, that is to say on subsection 530.01(1), but not on the second part, that is "(2) The original version of a document and the translated text are of equal value".

Would you be prepared to withdraw that part of your amendment, Mr. Bagnell?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chairman, if that's the will of the committee, I'll withdraw the second part of my amendment on equal value.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You need a subamendment to delete it.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I move a subamendment to delete the second part of amendment LIB-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You're referring to proposed subsection 530.01(2).

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It is this: “The original version of a document and the translated text are of equal value.”

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Yes. I am also told that it is not lines 30 to 42, but lines 30 to 40. I suppose that is also an issue of consistency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I have nothing to add to that.

(Subamendment agreed to)

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Now we're back on what's left of the amendment. I just want to refer to the witnesses' statements.

The witnesses also, remember, did bring that point forward in committee. We also asked the witnesses who were here if there would be very much documentation and whether it would be a lot of work. Their answer was no, because these are not very big documents.

So if you look at the additional cost, even if it's a small cost to the province, it would be for cases in which the person would not be treated fairly. I think that additional cost to make sure those people who don't realize they have to make an application to get it in their language get it automatically in their language is a tiny cost, and it's a cost that promotes fairness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Tremblay, would you like to reply to that?

[Marc Tremblay]

No.