Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 6th, 2006

[Rob Rainer]

I have no idea.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

In one of the cases you mentioned, did you not beat Stephen Harper at the Supreme Court when he was head of the National Citizens Coalition?

[Rob Rainer]

I believe that case was successful, yes.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Simser, you mentioned that $60,000 was not a sufficient sum to help you with your legal cases to defend your rights, and you mentioned that if the envelope can't be increased, then perhaps the upper limit should be $100,000 and the program could fund fewer cases. Wouldn't that involve turning requests down? Obviously it would. Would that not involve somehow denying somebody somewhere the ability to defend their rights?

[Scott Simser]

Just to correct the record, I said earlier that one out of 1,000 people use sign language. It's actually one out of 100 people who use sign language. I just want to clear that up.

To answer your question, depending on individual cases, there should be that flexibility to increase it to $100,000 to ensure that the support is there, but they would have to be significantly important cases. Cases that are too weak and wouldn't be able to go forward wouldn't be able to get that funding. I think it would be better to have, for example, eight strong cases that go forward instead of 20 cases that are weak and wouldn't be able to go forward. My point is, don't spread the funding thin.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

My next question relates to a point that Mr. Warkentin raised, which is that some groups are turned down because they don't meet the criteria, therefore suggesting that we should abolish the program.

You obviously are familiar with the criteria. Would it be possible that if indeed this were the case, if the criteria for some reason weren't inclusive enough, that perhaps they could be changed and the problem could be rectified very easily and very quickly without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as they say?

[Scott Simser]

Well, the structure of CCP could be changed in the way the board selects their applicants and how the panel selects those, maybe with professors from law school. Maybe a change in that structure would be a way to improve that.

We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, certainly not. Perhaps a change in the structure would be the way to go.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

This brings our testimony to an end. We're going to try to deal with--not today. We don't have consensus today to carry on with any more.

We can't do another full round, so I thank you very much for your testimony here today, and the best to you. Thank you.

We don't have a consensus to go on. Anyway, we'll have to deal with your motion on Monday.

Yes, Mr. Kotto.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

I looked at Monday's order of the day very carefully. It pretty much looks the same. Therefore, it is possible that the House may rise without dealing with these motions. Mr. Chair, I had made the effort to warn you. In fact, at the beginning of the meeting, I was worried that this would happen. In fact, I had reminded you to set aside some time to debate the motion.

I don't know who is opposed to the idea of advancing this matter. If this is an effort to filibuster, I would like to know. If it is because these motions are not agreeable to the government, one must be clear on the subject, so that we can all be forewarned to next time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, I wish to have you as well as my colleague Mr. Kotto know that I am the one who preferred not to open the issue today. To show my goodwill and to prove that I'm not filibustering, I suggest that we add a solid half hour to Monday's meeting, and that we have it end at 6:00 P.M. rather than 5:30 P.M., so that we can deal with the motions that we have received.

This is not a delaying tactic, but some of us, including myself, have a schedule to follow. I have commitments today, but if we set aside an extra half hour on Monday, I would be pleased to be here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

So we'll go on Monday. Would it be the pleasure of the committee that on Monday we meet until 6 o'clock? We'll add half an hour--so it'll be from 3:30 until 6--to deal with Mr. Kotto's motion.

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

The meeting will be two and a half hours on Monday.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.