Justice committee  The eligibility requirements are linked to federal policy, the criteria for the test case, not duplicating a former...those were the primary reasons funding applications weren't successful. I would imagine that a very small number would have been unsuccessful because they were incomplete or didn't provide enough information.

Justice committee  Thank you.

Justice committee  Most definitely.

Justice committee  I would add it's fundamentally the same on the equality side. The case had to address the constitutional charter provisions that we went through already—federal law, policy, or practice—and meet the criteria for a test case. I think it's important to mention it had to not duplicate cases that had already been funded, or had been attempted, or were before the court currently.

Justice committee  There were maximum rates, but I agree with Yvan that it's third party delivery. The program, its board, its independent members decided these under the contribution agreement, but I have information here that, for example, the program established maximum rates for applicants to seek reimbursement for administrative fees, legal research and consultation fees, legal drafting, and photocopies.

Justice committee  I do think that is a perspective that's been raised in the past, that an alternative model would be to establish a foundation. Again, I do think that's on the table in the work on modernizing the program. It's an alternative model for sure.

Justice committee  For individual cases? Go ahead.

Justice committee  It comes down to it being a constitutional or a charter right. It's not about the group per se. It's about the right they're pursuing. There might be other groups that are pursuing litigation but not that involving constitutional or charter rights. Does that answer the question?

Justice committee  Again, I apologize, as I'm not understanding the question. I think if an individual faces an issue with their rights, sometimes they will turn to these organizations. So if I'm a person with a disability—

Justice committee  As I said, we're talking about 290 groups that receive funding, so we had to go through all of that and we were able to find the groups.... The five groups that I mentioned accounted for.... As an example, of the 846 cases, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities brought forward 20, which accounted for 2.4%.

Justice committee  I think as I indicated in the presentation, the data we have is that between 1994 and 2006 about 53% of the applications were from groups and 47% were from individuals, so it was fairly balanced.

Justice committee  First, to come back a little to what we were talking about under the promotion and access stream of activities, I think that's what you're referring to. We're talking about small amounts of funding that were made available for organizations to carry out case development or impact studies.

Justice committee  That was a part of the program. Again, fundamentally, the rationale behind it was to improve awareness of and access to the CCP. It was to ensure that individuals who were experiencing some kind of an issue with their rights could advance cases through the work of these activities.

Justice committee  That's a very good question. As I mentioned earlier, we have the broader issue of financial barriers, so that may be represented there to some degree. The NGOs play a role in helping individuals to navigate the program and the system, so if there's an organization that can help them, they're probably more likely to bring it forward.

Justice committee  I think it's just in the general sense that the biggest barrier to accessing the justice system is financial. If there's a program that provides some financial relief to pursue a case, then you're going to be helping people who would not have otherwise pursued it because they didn't have financial support.