Okay.
You spoke earlier of the judges' liberal and generous interpretation in a number of language cases, and the more restrictive approach of some courts. I think that the case you just mentioned is an example of a restrictive approach.
It's almost impossible to include all the possible scenarios in the act. Whenever the act must be interpreted, there will always be discrepancies and issues raised. That's why I've always liked the fact that the Supreme Court seems to interpret the act much more liberally. The Supreme Court avoids listing all the authorized scenarios. It prefers to specify the two or three prohibited scenarios, and it therefore implies that all the other scenarios are valid. It's a somewhat different approach.
The risk in both Canada and the United States is that judges are appointed by the government in power. Some of the judges may be much more liberal or, on the contrary, much stricter in their interpretation. This can create issues. There's no doubt that our linguistic minorities have always been well served by the courts to date. However, do we use the courts too often? It's possible. Perhaps our legislation could use some reinforcement. What do you think?