First of all, we have done this in practice. We have enshrined a practice that puts such a high premium on functional bilingualism that it practically is a bar in being selected. We haven't done that formally.
I'm not sure it's a good idea, formally, because there may be other needs of the court at some point—for example, to appoint an indigenous person—where we may have to soften that requirement down the road. I think we're at a nice compromise right now, where, in effect, there is a requirement of functional bilingualism through the process without having to worry about either the constitutionality of such a provision or amending an act formally.