I'd like to go back to a point that you raised, that what is important is legal competency. A distinction is made, and I don't think it should be. I think that linguistic ability is an integral part of legal competency. Our acts aren't translated; they're drafted in both languages. So if you can't read the other version of the act, you understand half the act, since there isn't one official version that takes precedence over the other. In my opinion, it's essential that, at the Supreme Court, we be able at least to require... As regards the matter of the acts drafted in both languages, a translation is not enough, because you have to understand both versions.
On May 8th, 2008. See this statement in context.