That's a really big question.
Fundamentally, whatever people's situation in life is—whether it's a matter of disability, gender issues or whatever—when they feel their ability to succeed has been impacted by government action or decisions that impact their rights as identified in the charter, there needs to be a way for them to bring those concerns forward to an appropriate judicial body or organization that can adjudicate their concerns, decide whether or not they have a leg to stand on, if you will, and to propose some action to be taken within the context of whatever that body is. This is essential.
As I said, if we can't test things against the charter, the charter is meaningless. It is an incredibly important aspect of our judicial system and our whole legal system. The charter is fundamental, and it is basically what we have to rely on to keep our different governments in line to be able to protect our rights.
Some of the opposition members may not appreciate that sometimes the government of the day doesn't get it right. There needs to be a way to test whatever action the government has taken if you feel that it's contrary to your best interests. You might be wrong, but unless you have a chance to test it, you don't know.
If it's a matter of significant public import because the decision that is made in this case will have application across the country, it is really in the public interest that we support a means for these decisions to be examined and executed.