Mr. Speaker, when we look at the disabled it is important that we do not look upon them as a special interest group, which is what the government is doing by eliminating the court challenges program.
The rhetoric gets heated when the government attacks the fundamental premise of justice in this country by eliminating people's rights. It is the minority groups that need the programs because they tend to not have the money to undertake these challenges.
On the whole issue of disability, it is clear that we have a duty to accommodate people so they can be judged on their abilities not on their disabilities. To the extent that they can live as much of a normal life as possible, it is incredibly important that they have those rights.
Without the court challenges program, I think people rely on the human rights programs that might exist in the provinces but that does not substitute for something as important as the court challenges program which, ultimately, gets results before the Supreme Court.
I have a great deal of trouble with the government's position on this whole notion of interpreting rights and making those decisions because those things are covered in section 52 of the Constitution. As I listened to the Conservative members talk about Parliament and the government should decide on rights, that is totally wrong because governments make mistake. We have all sorts of examples in history where governments have made mistakes.
It is important to recognize that the interpretation of the Constitution, according to the Constitution, rests with the courts. For the average individual to access justice, it should depend on the merit of one's case and not on the size of one's pocketbook. People who are rich, like Conrad Black, can take care of themselves, but the people who are fighting for basic disability rights cannot care for themselves and that is why the court challenges program is so critical.