I would like to address the issue of disclosing evidence. I think you mentioned, over and above the issue of the availability of interpreters and stenographers, a lack of resources to have disclosed documents translated. Saskatchewan mentioned the problem as well.
I would like to say that this aspect of the letter surprises us somewhat. As my colleague has just explained, case law from before 2008, as well as after 2008, demonstrates that there was never a language provision that confirmed or granted the accused the right to obtain translated disclosed documents under the obligation established in the Stinchcombe decision.
Of course, in some provinces, it is done. I know that in Quebec, some courts have ordered a translated summary of the evidence, not on the basis of linguistic rights, but rather on the basis of fairness. This has created a precedent, although it is not based on language rights.