Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that my five minutes are beginning right now, because I want to use every second that I have.
Thank you very much for your presentations. We should note that usually, when a government comes power, it abolishes programs implemented by previous governments and creates new ones. There is nothing surprising in this. Nevertheless, we always try to find out why a program was abolished and a new one created. When a government creates a new program, it uses the opportunity to make it known to the public and it has no shortage of reasons supporting it. When a program is abolished, things are often a bit more difficult, and this is when the opposition and the other stakeholders try to find the reasoning behind the decision.
Intentionally or unintentionally, people sometimes think of unbelievably insidious reasons. In the case at hand, no reasonable or comprehensible explanation was given to justify the decision. Conceivably, one of the insidious reasons that motivated the government to make this decision might be an intention to muzzle linguistic minorities. If this is not the reason, it is nevertheless the result. In fact, abolishing the Court Challenges Program deprives linguistic minorities from the means to uphold their rights.
This was discussed at length. Mr. Godin referred to several cases in his province where rights have been trampled, but these things have happened all over Canada. There are many reasons for defending one's rights. It is obviously a crucial matter, and for certain groups, it involves their dignity.
Mr. Matte, could you or someone from your group tell us how many cases are still pending and will never be resolved without funding from the Court Challenges Program? I wonder whether you have any data regarding this. Generally, when an individual wants to make his case heard by a court, he is told that he had better back off because it would cost far too much. We know that a great many cases have not been proceeded with and never will be.