Thank you very much. I'll try to be concise.
On the question of the evaluation, it's quite clear there was a reference to the executive summary. The executive summary in its conclusion said quite clearly that while many individuals expressed the desire to have the CPP expanded, that wouldn't be the most efficient way to deal with what the court challenges program was designed to do.
One of the people on the independent review of the summary was Justice Gérard La Forest. I spoke to him this morning to revisit the issue and he continued to hold that in fact the court challenges program was operating the way it was supposed to, and the evaluation is quite clear on that point.
I think it is a larger issue. I'm going to agree with Mr. Angus. This is ideological. At the end of the day, just speaking to the question of conflict, if in fact holding a prior position disqualifies you from making a decision, then I would suggest this court challenges program didn't have a chance.
I would refer you to Ian Brodie, who I think holds some prominence with the government. They doled out millions to radical organizations and urged them to start charter challenges that targeted traditional Canadian values and laws. My sense is that the court challenges program was dead on the arrival of the new government if in fact you hold the position that a previously existing position disqualifies you from making these kinds of decisions.
More than that, the Treasury Board chairman at the time said it didn't make sense for the government to subsidize lawyers to challenge the government's own laws in court, which shows a painful misunderstanding of what the court challenges program is about, or, for that matter, even what the charter is about, because then the Prime Minister went on to say that they didn't intend to introduce any unconstitutional laws. That isn't for the Prime Minister to decide; that is for the court to decide. That's what the charter is about.
Given that the Prime Minister of Canada does not seem to understand the relationship between Parliament, which created the charter, and the court, which interprets the charter, this is a sad day for democracy and minority rights in Canada. The court challenges program is a victim of that ideology. I don't think there is anything more to it than that.
In terms of the question of whether or not the applications were deemed unacceptable by the court challenges program by virtue of who the organization was, as against whether or not the organization was actually acting consistently with the mandate of the court challenges program to challenge the government on an unconstitutional decision in their minds--and that's what the court challenges program was designed to do--can you confirm for me that this in fact was the reason that somebody who would come forward with an application would be denied? It wasn't because of who they were or what argument they put. It was whether or not they in fact were challenging a law of the government in the name of the charter.