Evidence of meeting #69 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Is that the only cost you would see attributed to this particular amendment?
10:15 a.m.
General Counsel and Director, Official Languages Law Group, Department of Justice
Yes. What I might add is that although it may be true that in many cases the indicting document is relatively short, we are taking additional measures to promote minority language trials.
So the scope of the endeavour might grow with time, and that's the purpose of the provisions we've introduced today, that there will be more and more of these trials and situations where the accused will avail themselves of these rights. But otherwise, I think what's on the record from the witnesses is accurate.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I'm pleased to hear Mr. Tremblay's statement about how the amendments that are being brought forward are in light of ensuring that there are more and more minority language trials available to the accused, and that obviously the government, having moved in that direction, is aware of the additional costs that such a policy, through the Criminal Code amendments, would impose on the provinces, where the majority of criminal trials actually take place. According to some of the expert witnesses we had, it was up to 95% or 97%; they varied on the percentage.
Given that this is the case, then I would assume that the government has already done its proper homework to determine over time what these additional costs could be, and it has taken this into account in the moneys it transfers to the provinces for the administration of justice. Therefore, any additional costs that Mr. Bagnell's amendment—should it carry, and I hope it does—might incur would possibly require some adjustment in the future.
In its wisdom, the new Conservative government has already taken into account significant projections of additional costs by moving forward these amendments to the Criminal Code. So the issue of additional costs with respect to this amendment, should it carry, should not be a major preoccupation to the members of this committee. In its wisdom, the government has already projected additional costs and will be providing resources to the provinces.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
10:15 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that I understand correctly. I'm speaking to Mr. Tremblay and to Mr. Moore. We were favourable to the amendment, but we now understand that first of all, there could be a cost to the provinces. During the federal-provincial-territorial meetings, the provinces declared that they were in favour of the status quo. Therefore, this amendment is not necessarily the result of consultations or of some desire expressed by the provinces. We are right to make this assertion.
Whatever displeases the provinces displeases us.
10:15 a.m.
General Counsel and Director, Official Languages Law Group, Department of Justice
What we suggested to the provinces for the consultations was, in our opinion, the status quo, therefore translation is available only at someone's request. We must therefore assume that since translation would automatically be available, there would be certain additional costs that could displease some of them. We do not know as we did not discuss these issues with the various jurisdictions.
10:20 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
We are obviously aware that the Minister of Justice is not the Minister of Finance, but we have no indication that the federal government intends to provide any compensation for the provinces.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Chair, what's been stated pretty clearly is that the concept this amendment would bring in has not been signed off on, if you will, by the provinces. It would incur an obligation on the provinces, an extra cost, and that's why the government at this time is not supporting the amendment. The provinces have not been thoroughly consulted, and they certainly haven't given their sign-off on it. So we don't want to impose a cost burden on them beyond what's been discussed.
10:20 a.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I am now speaking as a lawyer. I am asking a question. Suppose I am defending those accused in the Air India bombing, or I am defending Romanians accused of running a prostitution ring. You are telling me that under this amendment, the Quebec prosecutor would have to provide my clients with the relevant translations, etc., and that you have not discussed this with the province of Quebec. In fact, this constitutes a considerable increase in costs. Is that actually what you are telling us?
10:20 a.m.
General Counsel and Director, Official Languages Law Group, Department of Justice
We did discuss production upon request with all of the authorities. I'm not able to state that everyone cherished the thought, but I believe that I would be right in stating that the jurisdictions accepted our argument, that is to say that there is already a recognition of this obligation in case law, under existing provisions, and that what the bill was seeking in its original version was only confirmation, for the purposes of clarity, of what was already recognized by the courts as being the law.
10:20 a.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, there is something that we cannot support. Therefore, I will vote against this amendment because there has been no assessment done of the costs. We amend the Criminal Code taking that into account, and it is the provinces that will be grappling with such an amendment. There was no cost assessment done in relation to this amendment.
10:20 a.m.
General Counsel and Director, Official Languages Law Group, Department of Justice
The provinces and territories did not ask us to carry out such an assessment. In most cases, it must be pointed out that according to the area of jurisdiction, there are very few trials in the minority language. Therefore, the additional costs for them, if there are any, are minor. In fact, they recognize that it is not an issue of additional costs resulting from this bill, but indeed a recognition of existing costs for the implementation of the Criminal Code as it stands.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you, Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Lemay.
Don't forget, Mr. Lemay, it is a Liberal amendment.
10:20 a.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Whether it is a Liberal or a Conservative amendment, it is the same thing.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
It's an amendment that the government never put forward. There are other issues here.
10:20 a.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
My question is important, Mr. Chairman.
In my opinion, if we have both languages, French and English, in a single trial, everything is fine, but I am thinking of the witnesses. If the witnesses are Romanians or Russians... God knows how it all works nowadays, particularly as far as child pornography is concerned. Still, we must think of what the future holds. I am talking about witnesses, about the translation of documents in a case where the crown witness is a Romanian who speaks only Romanian, for example. We did not evaluate the costs, but they could be considerable.
