1. INTRODUCTION

The 8 November 2012 order of reference from the House of Commons provided “[t]hat the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be the committee for the purposes of section 533.1 of the Criminal Code.” During the subsequent parliamentary session, an identical order of reference was adopted by the House of Commons on 16 October 2013.

Section 533.1, added to the Criminal Code (“the Code”) upon passage of Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments) in 2008,[1] reads as follows:

(1) Within three years after this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Part shall be undertaken by any committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established by the Senate or the House of Commons, or by both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, for that purpose.

(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within a year after a review is undertaken under that subsection or within any further time that may be authorized by the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any changes that the committee recommends.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (“the Committee”) began its study of Part XVII of the Code (Language of Accused) on 27 May 2013. It held five meetings and heard witnesses from the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Fédération des associations de juristes d’expression française de common law (FAJEF), the Language Rights Support Program, lawyers Gérard Lévesque and Steven Slimovitch, law student Geneviève Lévesque and the Commissioner of Official Languages.

On 5 November 2013, the Committee wrote to all the provincial and territorial ministers of Justice asking for information on their experience administering Part XVII, including best practices and problems identified. They were also invited to give evidence. The Committee received seven replies, which, according to the ministers, is to serve as their evidence. These letters are appended to this report.

Despite a few regional issues and differences, these letters state that Part XVII of the Code is generally being administered without any major difficulty. However, there is still room for improvement.

This report outlines the main issues raised by the witnesses. It is not a comprehensive review of all issues pertaining to language rights in criminal law. That is why the Committee recommends that the Department of Justice continue working with the key actors and that a parliamentary committee follow up in five years with a review of Part XVII of the Code and its administration.

1.1 DIVISION OF POWERS

The federal government has a limited role in administering the Code’s language provisions. While the federal government does have exclusive jurisdiction over Criminal Code amendments, criminal prosecutions and the administration of justice are primarily provincial responsibilities.

The power to legislate in the area of official languages is an ancillary power related to the legislative authority of Parliament and the provincial legislatures over the fields assigned to them.[2] Having jurisdiction in criminal law, Parliament passed Part XVII (Language of Accused) of the Code. However, the provinces and territories play a leading role in protecting linguistic minorities in areas under their jurisdiction.

Michel Francoeur, Director and General Counsel, Official Languages Directorate, Department of Justice Canada, provided the Committee with further clarification regarding the role of the provinces and territories:

The provinces and territories are responsible for the composition and organization of their criminal courts. This means that under the provisions currently being studied, the provinces must ensure that they have the institutional and human resources necessary within their justice system to allow defendants to face trial in the official language of their choice.[3]

The Department of Justice Canada provides forums for discussion and partnerships within the Advisory Committee on Access to Justice in Both Official Languages of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group. It also provides direct support to the provinces and territories through two initiatives: the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support and the Contraventions Act Fund.

These initiatives help support such measures as the hiring of bilingual judicial and extra-judicial staff, language training, bilingual signage and document translation. Concrete examples of programs are presented in section 2.2.

1.2 BACKGROUND ON PART XVII

Part XVII, enacted in 1978, gradually came into force, province by province, and finally throughout Canada in January 1990.[4] In Beaulac, the Supreme Court of Canada found that equal access to designated courts in the official language of the accused is “a substantive right and not a procedural one that can be interfered with.”[5] It is Parliament’s responsibility to determine the extent and scope of language rights under Part XVII. These rights are distinct from the right to make full answer and defence under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter).

Under Part XVII, on application by the accused, a judge will order that the accused be tried before a judge, or judge and jury, as the case may be, who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused. If the accused speaks neither English nor French, a judge will order that he or she be tried before a judge, or judge and jury, who speak the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony. Courts are also required to make interpreters available to assist the accused, counsel and witnesses.[6]

Before Bill C‑13 was introduced, studies by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages[7] and an inquiry conducted by the Department of Justice[8] identified barriers to full and equal access to the criminal justice system in the official language of the accused’s choice. The amendments proposed by Bill C‑13 were designed to help reduce these barriers and the problems of interpretation that had been identified.

Bill C‑13 made various amendments to the Code, some of them related to provisions concerning the language of the accused. In particular, it stated that a bilingual trial might be warranted in the case of co-accused understanding different official languages. On 29 January 2008, the Senate passed Bill C‑13, with, among other things, an amendment requiring a comprehensive review within three years of the provisions of Part XVII of the Code coming into force. It is this review that the Committee undertook.

The Senate also sought to amend the bill so that the presiding judge would remain responsible for personally informing the accused of his or her right to a trial in the official language of their choice. However, this amendment was not adopted. Bill C‑13 received Royal Assent on 29 May 2008. Part XVII came into force on 1 October 2008.

2. ISSUES RAISED

2.1 OBLIGATION TO ADVISE THE ACCUSED OF HIS OR HER RIGHT (SUBS. 530(3) OF THE CODE)

Before the adoption of Bill C-13, the presiding judge was required to inform the accused of his or her right to a trial in the official language of their choice only where they were not represented by counsel. Bill C‑13 removed this condition, meaning that the judge must now ensure that the accused is informed of this right in all cases. However, the judge is not obliged to inform the accused personally, but must ensure that the accused is informed of his or her right — by counsel, for example.

As a best practice, Yukon has judges follow a prepared script during all first appearances that sets out this right. Ontario, however, states that flexibility is needed in the way the accused is advised. Therefore, the application of subsection 530(3) varies by region of the province. Sometimes the justice or defence counsel will advise the accused, while in other cases a pre-printed notice is handed out in advance.

2.1.1 FAILURE TO ADVISE

The Committee heard that in practice, it is desirable to have some flexibility in how the accused is advised. It is the failure to advise the accused that is troubling. In some cases, subsection 530(3) seems to “fall between the cracks” and simply no notice is given.[9] As noted by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, James Cornish, in his letter to the Committee, “[i]t appears, however, that this level of compliance with s. 530(3) has not been accomplished across the board in Ontario (…) [F]urther effort is still required (…)”[10] According to criminal lawyer Steven Slimovitch,

I've seen one courthouse in which they have preprinted forms that they give to a person who's being arraigned—two courthouses, I should say. But besides those, I've never heard a judge tell a person who's appearing, either represented or not represented, that he has a right under section 530 for a trial in English.[11]

The lack of “active offer” was also identified in 2012 by the French Language Services Bench and Bar Advisory Committee to the Attorney General of Ontario[12] and was reiterated by the witnesses who appeared before the Committee. The witnesses suggested several reasons behind this failure to advise, such as the fact that certain judges are not informed or trained in that regard.[13]

According to Allan Damer, President of the FAJEF, “[g]enerally, the judges base their decision on the [accused’s] name. … We cannot assume that because someone’s name is Boivin they are necessarily francophone. Why would the judge not make an active offer of service to a Mr. Johnson, for example? Everyone should be able to exercise their rights,”[14] regardless of the accused’s last name or knowledge of the other official language.

The expression “the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused,” used in section 530 of the Code, was interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court in Beaulac. In order to determine the official language of the accused, the Court ruled that judges must avoid inquiring about the personal language preferences or dominant cultural identity of the accused.[15] For example, the accused will be able to assert that French is their language, regardless of their ability to speak in English, if they have sufficient knowledge of French to instruct counsel in that language:[16] “The accused may therefore choose the official language in which they prefer to be tried, regardless of their ‘maternal language’.”[17]

Furthermore, in the same decision, the Court clearly ruled that an accused’s proficiency in the other official language is entirely irrelevant when determining his or her rights under Part XVII of the Code.[18]

2.1.2 CONSEQUENCES OF A BREACH

Failing to advise the accused of his or her right to a trial in the official language of their choice is not new.[19] However, decisions rendered before the 2008 amendments are unclear as to the legal consequences of such a breach.[20] In 1999, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia ruled that a failure to advise in accordance with subsection 530(3) constitutes a breach of the accused’s rights under sections 15, 16 and 19 of the Charter and consequently resulted in the conviction being set aside.[21] A little less than a month following that decision, the Ontario Superior Court reached a contrary conclusion.[22]

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, in R. v. MacKenzie, found that the failure to advise the accused in that case did not constitute a breach of a constitutional right and that the appropriate remedy was an order for a new trial, not a stay of proceedings.[23] According to Johane Tremblay, Director and General Counsel with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the order for a new trial is indeed the usual remedy in these cases.[24]

2.1.3 POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Several witnesses mentioned initiatives that facilitate compliance with subsection 530(3). For example, the Provincial Court of Manitoba developed a checklist for judges to ensure that the accused is advised of his or her rights. The policy guidelines of certain public prosecution services, such as those in Ontario and New Brunswick, as well as the federal service, require prosecutors to ensure that the accused is advised of his or her language rights.[25]

Changes have also been made to the codes of conduct for Ontario and New Brunswick lawyers, according to Rénald Rémillard, Director General of the FAJEF: “it is just as important that attorneys inform their clients as to whether or not they have the necessary linguistic skills to represent them during the trial that might take place in French or in English.”[26]

Given the judge’s position of authority and the accused’s vulnerability when appearing in a criminal court, and despite all other commendable approaches, some witnesses were of the view that the judge should have the legal obligation to personally advise the accused of his or her right to a trial in the official language of their choice.[27] However, the Committee believes that flexibility is still needed in the way the accused is advised, as stated by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General of Ontario.

Some members of the Committee suggested that there may be a difference between the French and English versions of subsection 530(3). Whereas the English version conveys a sense of obligation (“shall ensure that they are advised of their right”), the French version simply uses the verb “veiller” (“veille à ce que l’accusé soit avisé”).

2.2 COURT OFFICIALS ABLE TO SPEAK THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACCUSED (S. 530.1 OF THE CODE)

To ensure that Part XVII of the Code is administered properly, the provinces must have bilingual human resources so that the legal system can allow an accused to be heard in either official language as chosen by the accused.

2.2.1 JUDGES

Under Part XVII of the Code, the judge must ensure that the accused is informed of his or her right to a trial in the official language of their choice. This part also requires the presiding judge to be able to hear the case in the official language requested.

During his appearance before the Committee on the study of the Supplementary Estimates (C) 2013–14, the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Peter MacKay, said that “[o]ne of the big challenges … is the lack of francophone judges able to conduct sometimes very sophisticated, complex trials, both civil and criminal, in French.”[28] The Minister of Justice added that a language training program is available to federal and provincial court judges:

I can speak only for the federal judges, for whom we are making efforts and providing training, and not only for our own judges, those federally appointed, about whom I suggest I agree with my department, particularly among Federal Court judges, we have ample numbers of bilingual judges. I’m speaking to the provincial court level, from which the majority of criminal jurisprudence emanates. There is a challenge there. We have undertaken a program to provide language training to provincial court judges, particularly those outside Quebec and New Brunswick.[29]

Robert Doyle, Senior Counsel and Chief, Executive Secretariat, Public Prosecution Service of Canada, is of the view that there are enough bilingual judges in Canada in each province and in the appeal courts.[30] However, resources are not always available and it becomes a problem of matching. Unfortunately, there has yet to be a solution found to remedy this.[31]

[A]ll the provinces have judges who speak the minority language at all levels of the courts. That is the case for all provinces with the exception of one, which made arrangements. Legally, the availability of a francophone crown prosecutor can be guaranteed anywhere in the country. All of the provinces have this ability except Prince Edward Island, who has made arrangements with New Brunswick and our service to provide them with bilingual crown prosecutors if such a request is made.[32]

Other witnesses spoke about the problem of a shortage of bilingual judges. Allan Damer, President of the FAJEF, told the Committee that this may stem from the fact that certain accused will choose to proceed in the language that allows them to obtain an earlier trial date.[33] Under these circumstances, the language in which the accused wishes to proceed is no longer a personal choice. Instead, this choice depends on the capacity of the legal system to set a trial date earlier in the majority official language. The Committee heard that videoconferences may provide a solution to remedy the shortage of francophone judicial staff, but this is not always effective, since technical problems occasionally occur.[34]

Rénald Rémillard, Director General of the FAJEF, told the Committee that, in his opinion, the shortage of judicial staff will become less of a problem in the future:

The bilingualism of prosecutors and people working in legal aid is increasing, thanks to immersion. A growing number of anglophone members of law associations have French as a second language. It’s certainly the case in the western provinces, as well as in Ontario and Nova Scotia. I believe bilingual capacity is increasing. The shortage of bilingual people is likely to be less of a problem in the future, particularly thanks to the training offered across the country. That’s one way of increasing the bilingual capacity of the system. There are a lot fewer constraints in that sense than there were 5, 10 or 15 years ago.[35]

In 2013, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages published a study on the exercise by Canadians of their language rights before the country’s courts.[36] Conducted in partnership with the Commissioner of Official Languages for New Brunswick and the French Language Services Commissioner of Ontario, this study focused on the bilingual capacity of the superior and appeal court judiciary in six provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Québec.

The study examined the process for appointing superior court judges and the language training given to them. According to the Commissioner, access to a justice system in which Canadians may be heard in the official language of their choice is the result of a more overarching principle than the mere availability of resources. Institutional capacity is central to this issue, and that is why, in his report, the Commissioner of Official Languages asked “the federal Minister of Justice to appoint an appropriate number of bilingual judges with the language skills necessary to preside over cases in the minority official language.”[37]

The Commissioner recommended that there be a sufficient number of bilingual judges in each province; he also recommended that steps be taken to ensure sufficient French language proficiency to allow cases to be heard in both official languages. The courts should have the capacity to operate in both official languages without any hurdles.

The Committee was told that training for judges in either official language is essential because it will help increase the number of bilingual judges in Canada. In fact, the Committee heard that bilingualism, especially among provincial court judges, is one of the most crucial factors for the effective implementation of Part XVII of the Code.[38] The Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund[39] is intended to increase the capacity of the justice system to provide services in both official languages by offering legal and linguistic tools, workshops and training to bilingual lawyers and other justice system officials, and by providing legal education and information to the public. The Fund has a five-year budget envelope of approximately $40 million, which was renewed under the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages 2013–2018.[40] A language training program specifically for judges is also supported by the Fund:

One example of the training component of projects supported by this fund can be found in the applied language training program for provincially appointed judges sponsored by the Canadian Council of Chief Judges under the leadership of the chief justice of the Provincial Court of New Brunswick. In addition to its financial contribution from the support fund, [the Department of] Justice has also played a role in the development of this program. Since 2010, for the four past years, [the Department of] Justice has worked with the Provincial Court of New Brunswick in the development of this program, including the development of teaching tools and the approach centred on real cases, moot courts, if you wish. Since the rollout of this initiative in 2011, approximately 120 judges have attended the applied language training program.[41]

Another project resulting from the Fund is the establishment, in 2010, of the Centre canadien de français juridique, based in Winnipeg. The Centre offers specialized language training in legal terminology. Legal professionals are able to acquire and maintain knowledge in the two official languages.[42]

2.2.2 INTERPRETERS

The Committee was repeatedly told that the interpretation of court proceedings is an ongoing problem. In fact, the Federal‑Provincial-Territorial Heads of Prosecutions Committee discussed this problem at its 2012 meeting and noted that interpretation quality and accuracy vary from province to province. Robert Doyle, Senior Counsel and Chief of the Executive Secretariat of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and Rénald Rémillard, Director General of the FAJEF, made similar comments:

It varies from one province to another. In some cases, the employees or the court interpreters are well trained. They are provincial employees, be it at the Department of Justice or in another department. These employees have a rather high level of bilingualism in the legal field. In other provinces, however, that is not the case. They call upon interpreters who do not have training in the legal field to interpret testimony or things of that nature.[43]

The Committee also heard that it is difficult to find minority-language interpreters outside major centres. Because criminal trials are more complex and can last several weeks, interpreters are reluctant to travel outside major centres. Some travel costs may be covered for judges and Crown attorneys, but not for interpreters.[44]

The Committee also heard that, in some instances, the interpretation does not accurately reflect the trial proceedings.[45] Other times, the quality of the court reporting is poor. This, too, varies from one province to another. The Committee heard that problems with court interpreting were more prevalent in the western provinces, especially Saskatchewan and Alberta, than in the rest of Canada.[46] Allan Damer, President of the FAJEF, said:

We find that in practice, the interpretation is not reliable. It is not because the interpreters are unable to speak French, but because they do not have specialized legal training in French.[47]

To address these problems, the FAJEF created the Centre canadien de français juridique, which provides training to public and private officials in the Canadian legal system. Its mandate is to facilitate access to justice in French across Canada. The Committee heard that the Centre also offers training to interpreters.[48]

There is also the jurilinguistic centre at the University of Moncton, which offers training in New Brunswick and in Eastern Canada. Nonetheless, the witnesses told the Committee that the lack of training continues to be a problem in some parts of the country:

Two years ago, when we consulted court interpreters across Canada, most of them told us that there was a need for training and that it was a general deficiency. That is what we heard in many regions.[49]

2.2.3 JURIES

Several provinces mentioned that they had difficulties finding francophone or bilingual candidates to make up juries. The Committee heard that the means used to make up juries vary from one province to the next; there is no uniform procedure across Canada. Manitoba, for example, uses health insurance card numbers to make up a list that is representative of the general population. British Columbia uses the list of parents whose children attend francophone schools.[50] British Columbia has also adopted a policy of centralizing jury trials in one jurisdiction:

There are very few areas in the country where it would happen, because B.C. has adopted the policy of centralizing jury trials in one jurisdiction. … In any event, all bilingual jury trials will go there and the province will pay the cost of moving people there so they don’t have to find local citizens in northern B.C., where there just aren’t any.[51]

According to Rénald Rémillard, Director General of the FAJEF, the make-up of bilingual juries is an issue that has been discussed on only a few occasions by FAJEF members. “They are more worried that judges in some regions or provinces are not ensuring that the accused is advised of his or her rights.”[52]

2.2.4 TRANSCRIBERS

The quality of transcripts in the two official languages was briefly discussed before the Committee. In certain cases, it was said that they contain errors that could prejudice the rights of the parties when a decision is appealed. Gérald Lévesque, a lawyer who appeared before the Committee as an individual, said that some trial transcripts in French are written with no French accents. Moreover, when French is spoken in court, the notation “other language spoken” or “foreign language spoken” sometimes appears in the transcripts.[53]

In his 27 November 2013 letter to the Committee, the Minister of Justice for Alberta said that it was difficult to find transcribers who are proficient enough in French to prepare a transcript of court proceedings.[54]

2.3 PROCEEDINGS NOT SPECIFICALLY COVERED BY PART XVII (S. 530 AND S. 530.1 OF THE CODE)

Under sections 530 and 530.1 of the Code, the accused has a right to a trial and a preliminary inquiry in his or her official language of choice. At first glance, Part XVII is somewhat restrictive in scope: “As the law now stands, only proceedings at the preliminary inquiry and trial are subject to the language of trial provisions of the Criminal Code.”[55]

One may wonder which proceedings are considered to be part of a “trial” under the terms of the Code. For example, Guylaine Loranger, Legal Advisor of the Language Rights Support Program, questioned the application of Part XVII regarding sentencing hearings.[56] However, the Quebec Court of Appeal decided in 2008 that these hearings are subjected to sections 530 and 530.1 of the Code.[57]

In other instances, it is clear that certain proceedings, such as arrests and appeals, are not covered by sections 530 and 530.1.[58] However, case law has broadened the scope of Part XVII to include adjournment requests[59] and peace bond proceedings.[60]

What follows is not intended to be an exhaustive examination of all criminal proceedings, but an overview of the main issues raised by the witnesses who appeared before the Committee. We must not lose sight of the difference between the rights guaranteed by Part XVII and those guaranteed by the principles of fundamental justice enshrined in constitutional law. As was so aptly stated by the Supreme Court, in trying to clarify confusion between language rights and principles of fundamental justice:

The right to full answer and defence is linked with linguistic abilities only in the sense that the accused must be able to understand and must be understood at his trial. But this is already guaranteed by s. 14 of the Charter, a section providing for the right to an interpreter. The right to a fair trial is universal and cannot be greater for members of official language communities than for persons speaking other languages. Language rights have a totally distinct origin and role. They are meant to protect official language minorities in this country and to insure the equality of status of French and English.[61] [emphasis added]

2.3.1 DISCLOSURE

The 1991 Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Stinchcombe[62] and subsequent case law require prosecutors to disclose relevant information to the accused. In his January 2014 letter to the Committee, Gordon Wyant, Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Saskatchewan, expressed his concern about the lack of resources to provide fully translated disclosure under the relevant provisions. He requested clarification on the application of Part XVII to these documents.

So far, case law has established that the right of the accused to receive disclosure of evidence is not a language right. The Quebec Court of Appeal has clearly held that section 530.1 does not create a duty for the prosecution to provide a translation of disclosure evidence.[63]

That being said, according to Michel Francoeur, “there can be cases where principles of natural justice or fundamental justice may require translation, in whole or in part, of the disclosed evidence.”[64] Some courts have ordered a translated summary of the evidence on the basis of fairness.[65] Given the protection provided by the principles of fundamental justice and the fact that section 530.1 guarantees the right of the accused to the assistance of an interpreter to translate the documents tendered to the court, the Committee decided that it would not be appropriate to recommend the application of Part XVII to documents disclosed by the prosecution.

2.3.2 BAIL HEARINGS

When an accused is detained by peace officers following arrest, a judicial interim release hearing (also called a “bail hearing”) must usually be held before a justice of the peace within five days following the arrest.[66] In addition to seeking clarification from the Committee on disclosure, Saskatchewan’s Minister of Justice also sought clarification regarding the application of Part XVII to bail hearings, stating that bail hearings conducted in French are occasionally delayed.[67]

The Committee heard conflicting testimony on this matter. According to some case law, bail hearings could be included in the term “trial” used in Part XVII;[68] however, a witness from the federal Department of Justice said that:

Bail hearings per se are not covered by sections 530 and 530.1 … That issue came up when we were consulting the provinces prior to Bill C-13 [in 2007]. We decided that to extend at that point was not a good idea basically because provinces were telling us that they still had problems ensuring a full implementation of the current language regime, so they didn’t want us to extend at that point in time. The plan was to help the provinces and help the different stakeholders, for example, with … the support fund.[69]

Almost seven years have passed since the introduction of Bill C‑13. In their correspondence to the Committee, the provinces and territories have said that, generally speaking, there have been no major problems with the application of Part XVII.

The Committee acknowledges that the provinces are already making efforts to conduct bail hearings in the minority language, but is also aware that the situation is not perfect and that staff shortages often lead to delays, as pointed out by the Minister of Justice for Saskatchewan: “We have many courts in a number of different locations across the province and a relatively small number of bilingual prosecutors, judges and court officials. French bail hearings may be delayed on occasion as a result.”[70]

To deal with the shortage of staff and with delays caused by adjournments of proceedings, courts could conduct bail hearings by videoconference, as is sometimes done in Alberta.[71] It is important to remember that an accused is often in a vulnerable state, especially during a bail hearing, when their freedom is at stake. As the Commissioner of Official Languages so aptly put it: “If the point is to ensure equal access to a court process in the language of the accused's choice, that right shouldn't be limited to the trial, but should apply to the entire process.”[72]

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION 1

The Committee recommends that Parliament amend the French version of subsection 530(3) of the Criminal Code to read as follows: “Le juge de paix ou le juge de la cour provinciale devant qui l’accusé comparaît pour la première fois doit veiller à ce que l’accusé soit avisé de son droit de demander une ordonnance au titre des paragraphes (1) ou (2) et des détails dans lesquels il doit faire une telle demande.”

RECOMMENDATION 2

The Committee recommends that the Federal–Provincial–Territorial Heads of Prosecutions Committee meet with the Department of Justice Canada to discuss issues related to the composition of bilingual juries and court interpretation in both official languages, and to propose possible solutions.

RECOMMENDATION 3

The Committee recommends that the federal government continue to work with the provinces and territories to ensure Part XVII of the Criminal Code is enforced, since the provinces and territories that responded to the Committee were generally satisfied with the administration of justice in both official languages.

RECOMMENDATION 4

The Committee recommends that front-line police officers be educated and knowledgeable of an accused’s language rights and that the federal government reiterate this fact to the provinces, territories and policing institutions.

RECOMMENDATION 5

The Committee recommends that the federal government look at possible ways, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, to address the shortage of transcribers and interpreters in both official languages. It also recommends that the federal government, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, consider developing national jurilinguistic standards, if needed.

RECOMMENDATION 6

The Committee recommends that a parliamentary committee review Part XVII of the Criminal Code again in 5 years’ time.

RECOMMENDATION 7

The Committee recommends that the Federal–Provincial–Territorial Working Group on Access to Justice in Both Official Languages put on the agenda, at its next meeting, a discussion of the operation of the provisions in Part XVII of the Criminal Code, the availability of bilingual judicial resources at the national level, the consideration of a common definition of the level of language skills required of bilingual judges, and to report its findings to the Committee within a reasonable period of time.

RECOMMENDATION 8

The Committee recommends that the Department of Justice Canada consult with the provinces and territories, at the next meeting of the Federal–Provincial–Territorial Working Group on Access to Justice in Both Official Languages, in order to determine whether broadening Part XVII of the Criminal Code to include bail hearings would be advisable and to explore solutions, such as conducting these hearings by videoconference.