Mr. Chair, I wish to congratulate the member on his bill. He defends very eloquently the principles that I myself defend, namely, that it is important that Supreme Court justices understand pleas, documents and Canadian laws. As the member said, these laws are not translated: they are drafted in English and in French.
The day before yesterday, during my press conference, I was asked about this, and I said that one thing struck me. I will open the parentheses here and answer the member's question by discussing various interpretations of my report.
The language situation in Canada is complex. There are success stories and failures. The very nature of the political debate means that some people tend to point out the failures, the challenges and the problems, rather than the success stories. I accept all that in my report, and when I present it, my objective is to indicate future challenges.
In my opinion, when we see these kinds of situations, we quite clearly call them inconsistencies. We have a system that allows a citizen to be heard. In the current government framework, this system was even improved this year so as to guarantee that the accused has the right to a trial in the language of his choice. However, we make one important exception to this: the Supreme Court. I find that inconsistent.