We've talked at length about the matter of accused not availing themselves of their right to be tried in the language of their choice. A chief justice might think another bilingual judge isn't needed because only a half-dozen or twenty trials, out of a great many, have been conducted in French only. But that isn't a true assessment of the needs. Instead, the proper way to assess the needs is to consult with the province's association of French-speaking jurists. Such an association would be in a position to estimate how many of its clients would exercise their language rights if they had assurance that the system would work as effectively in French as it did in the majority language. That would be a better way of assessing the needs, as opposed to basing the decision on the fact that a small number of cases have been tried in French. That isn't an acceptable approach, in my view.
On March 27th, 2014. See this statement in context.