Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am shocked and disappointed that the member suggested that her party should not fund disadvantaged groups. Who else will protect disadvantaged groups to challenge the courts for their rights? What else is government for?
The powerful and wealthy need to be in a state that is governed by law but they do not need our assistance as much as disadvantaged groups. Who else will help those groups without any funding?
She also suggested that we should not be funding self-serving minority interest groups against the majority of Canadians. One of the groups that use the charter challenge is aboriginal people. Is she suggesting that aboriginal people are a self-serving interest group? On this side of the House we consider aboriginal people as part of governments and we treat them as governments, not as interest groups that should not have the right to defend their rights in court.
Does she consider women as one of these self-serving minorities, women who use the court challenges program? A self-serving minority against the majority. The last stats I had, women were actually a majority in Canada and therefore should not be referred to as a self-serving minority interest group.
One of the biggest complaints I heard about these various cuts is that they were done without consultation. People from museums, literacy groups, women's groups, aboriginal people, all the volunteers woke up the next morning and had these cuts thrust upon them without consultation. The summer student program was cut too. To work out a plan to make cuts with these groups, a reasonable plan, is what governments always do. Rational, clear-thinking, organized governments at least consult with the groups so they can prepare for such dramatic cuts.
I wonder if the member agrees that there was no consultation with the groups that were cut.