Thank you for the question.
Constitutions are best understood as living trees. In my remarks, I cited the American constitution's Bill of Rights—200 years and growing. To my eye, there's no shortage of development at work in terms of litigation south of the border on the question of clarifying constitutional rights.
Constitutions have to reflect the societies that they're the foundation of. The courts are a vital player. I grant the point that absolutely the legislature is a vital player as well, but without the supremacy of the Constitution, the democratic project fails as a constitutional democratic project. This means that you absolutely have to have a supreme judiciary, as we do in this country, which in the end has the responsibility to say what this provision in the Constitution means at this time for this case.
For us, in terms of the history of the Court Challenges Program, to leave it only to those who have the means it takes to fight a case through to the Supreme Court of Canada, we're talking very large dollars. To leave access to the Supreme Court of Canada on constitutional questions as fundamental as official language minority and equality rights in this country to those who have the dollars to do so would be a shame, in my submission.