Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, my name is John Carpay and I am the Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. I learned French in Quebec, at Laval University, where I did my BA in political science. I also have a law degree from the University of Calgary.
Our organization has an interest in the Court Challenges Program because a man in British Columbia, whose name is James Robinson and who is the Chief of the Nisga'a band in northwestern BC, wanted to make use of this program. As members of Parliament, I am sure you know that in 2000, the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act was passed. It established a new government and a new constitution, as well as a new citizenship for the first nations peoples in northwestern British Columbia. With the assistance of our organization, James Robinson applied for funding, because he felt the agreement violated the equality rights set out in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 2003, the response from the Court Challenges Program was that it would not provide financial assistance to Mr. Robinson, because the program did not agree with Mr. Robinson's objective. In other words, the program did not share his vision of equality. I see here today a number of members of Parliament representing various parties. There are four parties in the House of Commons—in other words there are four visions of justice. Each party has its own definition of justice.
As you know, this is a subject that has been debated since Plato wrote The Republic. How do we define justice? What are the aspects of justice? The same is true of equality. There are a number of definitions of equality, not just a single vision of it.
Under the Court Challenges Program, taxpayers' money was paid to the feminist group LEAF, the Legal Education and Action Fund, which, in its definition of equality, advocates the constitutional right to social assistance, abortion, and a different definition of marriage. That is its right. We enjoy freedom of expression and the freedom to go to the courts to seek change, so as to take part in the political process. All that is well and good. However, is it fair that taxpayers' money is used to promote a single group's view of equality and that the same program rejects all other visions of equality? There are a number of different visions of justice and equality.
In a democracy, there are debates, including debates before the courts involving individuals who are equal. However, when the state provides taxpayers' money to help out just one group or just a few groups that share a single vision of equality, that is not fair. That is why I am hoping the government will stand by its decision not to use taxpayers' money to advocate and promote a single vision of equality.
Thank you.