Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a comment and a question. My comment follows what Ms. Martin said.
Earlier, I referred to three conventions to which Canada is a signatory, that is, two conventions and a report which Canada accepted. I would like to come back on that subject for the next few minutes. Indeed, Canada made a commitment before the Human Rights Committee, and the report of our witnesses mentions this in an international context. I would like to remind you that Canada signed on to the report, the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, and it is extremely important—in any case, it was extremely important—for Canada to have been a signatory. By signing that Covenant, Canada was officially recognized as being an advocate for minority rights and human rights in Canada.
There is also the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Canada is also a signatory to that convention. Canada was never shy about telling the world that it was one of only 20 countries which at the time signed on to this convention. I believe that Canada would lose a lot of credibility if it eliminated its Court Challenges Program, since its is thanks to the Charter, and to the covenant signed within the framework of the convention, that several feminist groups in Canada were able to uphold their rights.
Third, there is the Erasmus-Dussault Report. Last fall, the minister responsible for aboriginal communities told us that he agreed with the Erasmus-Dussault Report on native communities and that there had to be changes. He promoted the report. Canada would look rather foolish if it abolished the Court Challenges Program, since this program could help our native communities.
I will now move on to my question for the witnesses.
In its 2003 summative evaluation of the Court Challenges Program, the Corporate Review Branch made a recommendation which I find extremely important. It is recommendation six, which says that, in the name of transparency and accountability, if the program were to be renewed, it should include a greater exchange of information between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the organization. The program's detractors told the committee all kinds of stories and they do not seem to be aware of how things work within your organization.
First, don't you think there was a communication problem? Second, don't you think that it would be to your advantage to appear more often before the Canadian Heritage Committee to present reports, which would have perhaps allowed us to support you even more? Do you think that more could have been done in that regard?