My strong belief is that mastery of both official languages is a critical competence. So when someone comes forward and says, or says about a candidate, that he is very competent, that he has all of this experience, but he doesn't have the ability to hear a case that's presented before the Supreme Court in the language in which that case is presented, then he is missing a critical competence. He is actually not as competent as a candidate for the Supreme Court who does have that ability.
We are now in a position where nine of the ten judges are able to hear cases without interpretation--sorry, eight of the nine. Thank you for the correction. The result of that is that when the judges are in chambers and are having their discussions, even if it's a case about language in Quebec--and we're waiting for a number of decisions in which the previous judgments were written in French and the presentations that were made before the court were made in French--the debate that is presumably going on, perhaps even as we speak, about that case will have to happen in English; otherwise, one of those judges will not understand. Well, that's a competence that judge does not have. My view is that this is a skill that is a critical competence to do the job.