First, let us say that we are Canadians. As Canadians, we value the Parliament of Canada and the rights and the powers it has to make laws. That's why we have things like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If we had no parliamentary system and no way of ensuring that these types of protections or these types of basic laws were to be made, if the Parliament had not been there, it would not exist today. So Parliament did the right thing. The parliamentarians, the MPs at the time, did the right thing by enacting such a basic law of the land.
But a law, as you know, cannot encompass every application in the field. It usually is a very broad knowledge. It gives rights and it gives concepts, and then people have to apply it, either through additional legislation, through regulation, or through application by civil servants or by other authorities.
When you get to that level, the application is an interpretation of what the basic law of the land, the charter, says. We certainly believe, as members of the board and as a program—and I think most Canadians believe this—that it is appropriate to go and check whether the application that was done of a particular right that was recognized is appropriate and well done.
Of all the cases that we have supported in the courts—as I said, about 1,200-something since our program was put in place—we've lost cases. People lost cases. But that's fair, because at least you know that in those particular cases, those applications were rightly done by government or by its agents. In other cases, the applicants won because things were not done properly or they could have been interpreted in a different fashion. That's why we have courts: to clarify these notions when we apply constitutional rights or any other application of Parliament.
We do have a basic respect for Parliament to make and enact laws. Somebody, somewhere, has to interpret, though, and these things we should be able to challenge.