Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Pelletier. It is an honour for us to meet you. Thank you for helping us better understand the nature of the Constitution. Sometimes, we can get lost in it.
The bill has been on the agenda for a good number of years. I was parliamentary secretary for official languages a while ago and, yes, Mr. Godin, I voted against the bill for many reasons.
As a follow-up to what we heard earlier, I have always had a little difficulty in explaining bilingualism too. Being fluently bilingual is one thing, understanding another language is another thing, and speaking that language is something else again.
In my view, bilingual judges must not only understand the language, but must also speak and understand legal language. Just now, when the people from KortoJura came to testify, I appreciated hearing them say that, when we ask judges to be bilingual, they first of all need to understand legal language.
I am reasonably bilingual. If I was at the Supreme Court as a lawyer, or if I became a judge, I am not sure that I could handle legal language in English as well as in French. That is where I have a little difficulty. Personally, I always had a hard time understanding why there would be no more need for interpreters. French has a number of variations, depending on where the speaker comes from.
I am from Quebec, and, when I hear Mr. Samson speaking, I am not sure I always understand what he is saying.
Ah, ah! I mean that in the nicest way.
That said, how can we go about enshrining in legislation the fact that we agree that judges must be bilingual without touching the Constitution, but including the legal nature of the language, which seems to me to be increasingly important in the light of the testimony we have gathered?