Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to close as well by saying, first of all, that there's no angst on the part of this individual here on any of those rights issues. I will defend them to the hilt.
The issue is, are we excluding some in our society from having their voices heard when it comes to interpreting the charter? The suggestion that somehow we're excluding people from funding who wish to take away charter rights is totally false. We're talking about being truthful here. That's not what the case is.
The issue is that these individuals believe in a more restrictive application of the charter. And from time to time the courts apply a more restrictive approach; at times they apply a more liberal approach to the interpretation of the charter. That's all these groups are asking for, that there be fairness, even-handedness, and balance in how the funding is allocated.
I've never suggested there's an actual conflict of interest. What I am saying is that the groups involved in membership on the board and on the panels appear to be almost like a club, and this is something that needs to be addressed and should have been addressed before. A lot of Canadians had concerns with the program because of those problems, the perception of conflict of interest, and the problem with only expansive interpretations of the charter being funded under this program.
Mr. Chair, I believe in the Charter of Rights. I believe it needs to be a living document, as Ms. Morton stated. It needs to adapt to the times. But as it adapts, we use the courts to interpret that document. If we're going to provide funding for challenges to the charter or to decisions that government has made, we need to allow more than just one voice to be heard.
Often, the government voice is heard and it's usually well funded. We also have those seeking a broader application of the charter who want to be heard. And then there are those who want to intervene as well in those proceedings and who may have a different approach, who may argue more vociferously or less vociferously for a restricted application of the charter.
In any case, there needs to be some fairness in the system, and we need to ensure that the program has credibility. Unfortunately, we've lost that opportunity. The irony, as I said earlier, is that had some of these issues been addressed, perhaps the program would still exist.
Those are my comments.