I note some confusion in all the remarks expressed before the committee this morning. I believe it's important to clarify matters. When it comes to federal jurisdiction, the Official Languages Act and the Criminal Code, you, as parliamentarians, and we, as the government, have a certain control and can pass laws, policies and so on. In those conditions, the Criminal Code provisions referred to and Part III of the Official Languages Act make it so that, apart from the minor exemption for the Supreme Court previously discussed, not only is everyone free to use English or French before the courts, but under correlative obligations, the judge and Crown counsel must actively use the language chosen by the other party. That's already the case in the sphere that we control and over which we have an influence.
However, the other spheres are areas of provincial jurisdiction. In a case concerning access to justice in Manitoba, the Constitution does not guarantee the right to be understood directly. No provincial legislation confers that right. Provincial law is a provincial jurisdiction. I think that issue is important. If you ask me in what language the introductory pleadings will be drafted in a civil case in Manitoba, I can only answer you that that isn't our responsibility.
There are rules at the federal level. Mr. Fraser referred to those of the Criminal Code which are in the process of being developed and which are designed to provide for translation of the information. At the federal level, the Attorney General has an obligation to use the language of the other party from the moment it is known. These matters must be clarified, or else our discussions will head in the wrong direction in a number of respects.