Justice committee  There are two points. The first is that, when you have limited resources within the Department of Justice to spend on making sure the laws are compliant with the charter, my recommendation is that you spend the money here in Parliament rather than in the courts. That's the first

Justice committee  On the issue of disability and access to the public square, if you will, access to justice for those who are disabled, I think that a court challenges program may focus our attention just to the charter on human rights when I think that, in fact, Parliament and the provincial leg

Justice committee  My view is that we should respect precedents.

Justice committee  That's right. I'm opposed to a funding model that would exclude Carter because of the reasonableness standard, and I am opposed to any re-litigation. I know these positions seem inconsistent, but they're not. That's my position. You may disagree with it, but that's my view: prec

Justice committee  It's why I still disagree with the nine judges who—

Justice committee  If we have the resources, then I think your point is well made. Let me make one other comment. With all due respect to the former attorney general, I don't trust the Attorney General or his department to give opinions to me, or to you as members of Parliament. Here's what I woul

Justice committee  No. This was a decision at the end of the appeal. It was a decision where the court said, “You've asked for costs. We're giving you costs because you meet this test.”

Justice committee  Coming from the standpoint that I, first of all, do not think the program is advisable, if we take that off the table, it's hard to then answer the question of which one is better—

Justice committee  —but let me just say I would be comfortable with either. What I'm opposed to, strongly opposed to, is consultation with law school deans and law school professors. They do not have any of the responsibility of government, they have their own pet project they're going to be studyi

Justice committee  In my view, if you're going to go down this road, you have to go all in. I think you have to fund everything. Meritorious programs that you can't afford today will just have to wait. That's what's happening now. You will have a better program than having nothing, but if you repla

Justice committee  Only when there's an absence of merit and a court would take the position that it is a frivolous and vexatious case. That's the test that a court would usually apply to throw out a case. If an argument cannot meet that minimum standard, then it should be set aside. Otherwise, the

Justice committee  That's my recommendation, yes. Thank you.

Justice committee  The idea when I mentioned the individuals—bureaucrats, law professors, and others—was to say that their discretion would not be the basis for making the decision, but the law would be. Obviously, there would have to be an official who would compare the law to the application and

Justice committee  It could be. I think so. I haven't given much thought to whether it should be outside the Department of Justice. Maybe it should, because the Department of Justice is going to be defending most of these. Maybe it should be someone who Parliament appoints and is responsible to P

Justice committee  Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss with you my experience and my recommendations regarding federal government funding for charter litigation challenging federal law, and based upon what my colleague has just said, maybe more than just federal law. There are thre