I'm very pleased we've had this opportunity today, and that it's televised, because I think it has clarified for many people the fundamental issue we're dealing with.
When we began this, I was trying to understand the Conservative point of view, and we heard first of all--from the Prime Minister--that it was a Liberal lawyer slush fund, and that was proved to be a falsehood. We've seen this relentless attack from Mr. Fast on conflict of interest, which I think hasn't been shown, but Mr. Fast has very much clarified the Conservative view here, and I appreciate that he has managed to do that.
The heart of the argument I'm hearing from him is that certain groups believe in a restrictive notion of rights, that certain groups want to test the limit of minority rights, to take away rights, to exclude people from rights, and because they can't access your fund to go after minority rights, they're somehow left out in the wilderness, and this is somehow unfair. We had the example of our friends from REAL Women. It turns out it has been 13 years since they made an application to a fund that no longer exists. It wasn't your fund, and I was thinking 13 years is a long time to lick your wounds when you're out in the wilderness Mr. Fast is talking about.
This is a fundamental issue we're dealing with, because the notion being put forward by the Conservatives puts civil rights jurisprudence on its head. What they are saying here today is that unless you allow groups from the majority, who can test and take away rights from a minority, then you should not allow the minority to have access to defend those rights. That seems to be the fundamental argument we have heard here. That seems to be the entire attack. I think, in a subtler way, it was explained by the Treasury Board minister, who said it's not wise government policy to provide money for people to test government, to test the Conservative government's laws.
This will be my last comment on the court challenges program. I think we are dealing with a fundamental view of how minority rights exist in Canada, one upon which we have based this jurisprudence for years, and it is under attack from a viewpoint, and what the attack is has been very clearly articulated.
I'd like to hear your viewpoint on the need to maintain the notion that government has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that minority groups have the ability to ensure they can access rights that theoretically are proclaimed but sometimes not enacted in law.