Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fournier and Mr. Grondin, good afternoon. It's an honour to meet you, even though it's by teleconference. My name is Alupa Clarke, and I am the member of Parliament for Beauport—Limoilou, in Quebec.
You spoke about an editorial committee that could select key rulings. I see some danger in that, and I'll explain why.
I think all rulings should be translated systematically. As you well know, judicial activism is a real phenomenon. In criminal law, rulings are more objective, based on facts and hard evidence. Constitutional rulings, however, are something else. Chief Justice, you mentioned a section of the Constitution Act 1867. I love that; I really like to cling to 1867. That said, the editorial committee could engage in judicial activism by choosing rulings favourable to a certain interpretation of the Constitution for the province of Quebec. You see where I'm going.
In this case, how can we trust that this editorial committee won't engage in judicial activism, which we wouldn't want to see happen?