That would be very difficult. One of the main problems with the Court Challenges Program was that it provided money to defend a single viewpoint, a single perspective. However, in many cases there are more than simply one or two points of view, there are several, particularly when the dispute involves education, the definition of marriage or the health care system. In the area of health care, I could mention the decision in the Chaouli case, which was quite complicated.
In my opinion, it is impossible to develop a government program that would provide funding equitably to defend various points of view. In addition, in each case, a decision would have to be made as to whether or not taxpayers' money would be provided to defend two, three or four different points of view and to how many people the money would be given.
It cannot be done. The government's decision to cut off the funding for this program was the best solution, because the program was intrinsically unfair.