Canadian Heritage committee  Absolutely not. It's not fair. You can't make it fair.

Canadian Heritage committee  It cannot.

Canadian Heritage committee  No. The concept is wrong because you can't fund one side of a constitutional issue or one side of a moral value. The concept is totally impractical, and built into it inherently...it's discriminatory.

Canadian Heritage committee  Because we wanted to be on an equal playing field with LEAF, which has all the money, or with the homosexual groups. We had to get our voice heard. How else are we going to get—

Canadian Heritage committee  No, we did not. We thought if they're going to fund one side, they should fund our side. We didn't think it was fair at all, but we wanted to show, by our application, that this was a discriminatory organization. Certainly, the documentation and all the letters we had back, which we have on record--and we have put some of it into this brief--indicate totally that it was a discriminatory organization.

Canadian Heritage committee  Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. But you have a conflict of interest. For example, the current executive director of the National Association of Women and the Law is a former executive director of the court challenges program. They're all intertwined and interlocked, administering funds to go only to their own groups.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's our pleasure to be here. REAL Women has been involved with the court challenges problem, or I would say uninvolved, because we have been excluded totally from it. We have tried for years to get some sort of funding and some sort of recognition. Because we're not ideologically in tune with the court challenges program, we have always been denied funding.