Well, this amendment of course allows the clerk, or it could be another person, to inform the accused of their rights. If the judge doesn't have the bilingual capacity to do it, at least the outcome is that the accused will be informed. But as the commissioner says, if it's the judge who informs the accused, it has another perspective to it. The accused will feel more comfortable in exercising their rights knowing that the judge is offering the informing of their rights.
At the end of the day, I think that maybe, technically, it's easier now because the obligation doesn't lie only on the judges to inform the accused, but it's the impact of that active offer being made by anyone.... It could be the crown. It could be the defence lawyer. It could be anyone who informs the accused of their rights. It's a question of whether or not, at the end of the day, more accused will exercise their rights with that amendment or not. It is difficult to say.