I believe that, but let's say that right now and since Confederation in 1867 we've had one-half of those rights. Section 133 of the Constitution Act, the original BNA, says that anybody can address a court in English or French in Quebec or at the federal level, but that doesn't mean that the listener has to understand what the person is saying. You could literally have, and I've seen this actually in some cases in Quebec, somebody address the court in English and the judge not be able to address the litigant in English, and he or she addresses the litigant in French.
Somebody has to do the interpretation, the translation. Typically and in most instances, it would be the lawyer. The judge would look at me and say,
“Mr. Bergman, could you interpret my words for your client?”
All of a sudden, I am the lawyer, and I am the interpreter. Not only that, in the meantime the trial is continuing, and so I need to listen to what is happening. My brain is functioning on three levels at once. Now, maybe I can chew gum and walk—that's two at the same time—but three is extremely difficult. What happens, at least in my experience, is that the translation suffers, and then I need to say to the judge,
“Your Honour, I need a break for a few minutes to summarize what you said for my client.”
In the meantime, my client is sitting there, and rightly or wrongly, the client does not understand French or understands it poorly and is looking like a deer in the headlights, wondering, “What's happening to my case? I don't understand. Is this good or is this bad? Are we winning, or are we losing?”
That is not right.