I was the first person to ask questions and I will also be the last.
I want to use my time to first congratulate Geneviève. What you are doing as a young law student is quite amazing. I think you have chosen the best university when it comes to law.
That being said, I heard the issues raised by my Conservative colleague Mr. Wilks, but I think they are inconsistent with this review of Part XVII of the Criminal Code. We currently discussing the post-arrest stage. Be that as it may, perhaps we should study these issues in more depth. I have some sympathy for those problems, but the substantive issue here is whether that part's provisions are sufficient, as I said earlier.
I want to make sure I understood what you said, since we will soon start drafting our report.
Canada is a large country that is bilingual on a federal level. Bilingualism is probably much better reflected in Montreal than in the regions—such as Saguenay or elsewhere in Canada. Large bilingual cities like Montreal are few and far between. I just want to put this into perspective. I am a Quebecker who is proud of being able to write and read fluently in both languages. However, achieving that has required a great deal of effort and personal will. In some cases, this goes hand in hand with the individual's background and circumstances.
I understood what you meant when you said that some willingness was necessary. We are talking about political will, and perhaps we should remind our judiciary branch that it has some obligations under Part XVII of the Criminal Code. We must ensure that this issue is no longer left to the lawyers. I am not saying this is bad or good, but I know how things work in criminal law. On a morning when there are three or four offenders without a lawyer and no one has their lawyer cardex, whoever is in the room is chosen. Basically, in some cases, the language issue is not the lawyer's priority. Therefore, it may be preferable to leave that up to the individual presiding over the trial—the judge.
To ensure that political will—the real will to hold a trial in the language chosen by the defendant—judges should inform people of that right and of the fact that they can use it in the simplest possible way. In some remote areas—more rural areas or the regions across Canada—that may prove a bit more difficult, but the legislation already provides that this must be done and what must be done. I think that your testimony on that issue will prove to be rather edifying.
If I have understood correctly, you think this should also apply to the appearance and release stages, which are extremely important for defendants. Is that right?
