Mr. Chairman, I have not read the.... Perhaps the clerk or the researchers could help us in determining what indeed the litigation concerns specifically. I suspect it may be specifically referring to two things. One is the Official Languages Act, subsection 43(2), which states that--and don't pin me down here--the Minister of Canadian Heritage shall consult in making decisions concerning programs that would affect the implementation...enhancing the use of French and English in the country. Roughly, that's what it says.
The other document they may be referring to is a document that all party leaders, I believe, signed in the last campaign, which was to respect the Official Languages Act in terms of the spirit and its letter. If that is what the litigation is about, then my opinion is that it wouldn't prevent the committee from looking at the politics of the decision by the government to cancel the court challenges program. Certainly I would rally immediately, with the concept that none of the parties in the litigation be invited. But there are enough on the list submitted before us that the....
For instance, the group from Prince Edward Island would cover the francophone, the linguistic side of it. The Gisèle Lalonde, Michelle de Courville Nicol, and the Montfort Hospital situation would cover those as well.
If the decision of this committee is to proceed not on the actual litigation, which we'd have to confirm, but on the overall debate, and if we avoided those groups, there would be other groups that could cover the linguistic aspect of the importance of the court challenges program, as well.
I'm putting that on the table to try to guide us as we go forward.