Status of Women committee  I think they're much more inclusive. They're not as discriminatory, because they're going to be open to anyone, which is a novelty for this particular department or agency. The second thing is that I'm always puzzled by the fact that we're talking about transportation for women,

Status of Women committee  REAL Women of Canada has been around since 1983, when we were federally incorporated. We represent a vast cross-section of Canadian women-- Métis women, immigrant women--many, many women across Canada. One thing we've found is that the most discriminatory agency against us has be

Status of Women committee  I gave you our brief.

Canadian Heritage committee  —compromises, which the court can't do. It's black or white. So I think it has usurped it. I think the cases right from 1985 on, when the equality section came into effect, have gradually given more and more power to the court by their own decisions and widened their jurisdicti

Canadian Heritage committee  Yes. What's happened since the charter came in, actually the equality section in 1985 and the charter in 1982, is that the court has taken more and more authority and widened its jurisdiction. It was never intended to be what it has turned out to be, and it's usurping the role of

Canadian Heritage committee  I don't know why people cannot raise their own money for language rights. I totally support bilingualism, but I don't see why the government is paying out money when people themselves can raise the money. Why is the government into this court business anyway? It's not appropriate

Canadian Heritage committee  I would say the same thing we've had to.... We've had to dig into our own pockets. Because we have support from other people across the country, we've had to pay for it. If you have support from grassroots people, why can't you go to court? It's the same thing with Mr. Carpay on

Canadian Heritage committee  Do I believe it has been what?

Canadian Heritage committee  No, not at all. We've been very broad, and we're very inclusive. It's the radical feminists and the homosexuals who are being very exclusive. We've been just absolutely the opposite. We want to expand rights to families. We want to expand them for children. We want to expand righ

Canadian Heritage committee  And by feminists.

Canadian Heritage committee  Yes, because the status of women committee funds, again, only an ideology that clearly and unequivocally does not represent women, because many of us women are not at all suffering discrimination. Some are. But they are funding an ideology, and that should be eliminated because i

Canadian Heritage committee  It's a matter of how it's interpreted, indeed, yes. Many of the interpretations, because of the court challenges program, have given a wrong interpretation.

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

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—