Yes.
Evidence of meeting #27 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was case.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #27 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was case.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Okay.
I have just a quick question to both groups. When it comes to the challenges program and how you've utilized it in the past, for the record, I'm assuming that any political affiliation did not factor in when you decided to choose a lawyer for a particular type of challenge.
4:55 p.m.
President, National Anti-Poverty Organization
From my perspective and from the perspective of the groups I work with, coming from the low-income sector, there would be no lawyers. If we wanted to access the courts, the court challenges program would be the only way we could do it, especially if it was a federal issue like child tax or legal civil services.
There is no lawyer in Saskatchewan that we would find who would help us pro bono, and we only have legal aid services there that do family and criminal cases. We have nothing for civil services. If we want to make any challenges or take anything to court, the only way we could do that is to apply to the court challenges program. That doesn't necessarily mean that our application is going to be accepted either, but having that right and knowing that we have access to that if we should need it is a self-confidence issue for poor people.
And now that it has been pulled away, if something should happen and we need to access that, where do we go? Who is going to help us? It's not there any more. There is nothing left for us.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Simser Consulting, Canadian Association of the Deaf
Well, the government doesn't give money to non-profit organizations for political purposes, so when you go to court it's for a political purpose. Therefore, the government says that you cannot use their money. Their moneys would be used only to administer that program. So in that sense, we're stuck, and we don't really have a lot of options or choices when we do want to litigate something.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here and sharing with us your touching testimonies. I am not going to ask you the usual questions, rather I will approach the topic holistically.
Many people who observe what is going on on Parliament Hill have noticed that the Conservative government has abolished the Canadian Volunteerism Initiative, as well as the Court Challenges Program, and has changed the States of Women program so that it can no longer fund groups that defend rights and act as advocates.
Do you share the impression that the Conservative government wishes to muzzle all those who hold a vision different from their own?
5 p.m.
Executive Director, National Anti-Poverty Organization
If I could answer perhaps on behalf of NAPO, I think it's a difficult question to answer without really giving it some very careful thought. Every government in power certainly has its own philosophy of how to approach issues and what may work best to solve a particular social or economic challenge. I think, though, that the principles of access to justice, access to the courts, particularly in our circumstances, with people who don't have the means otherwise, is a fundamental principle that needs to be upheld.
And sticking strictly to this particular issue at hand, I think the fundamental issue here is that there are times in the course of a year or in the course of history when disadvantaged groups need to be able to access resources to challenge a court decision. If a funding program is not available for them to do that, they're fundamentally disadvantaged relative to others who would have the resources to mount a challenge.
I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, but I do want to remind everyone of fundamental principles relative to this particular case.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
In your circle, you surely must have heard comments regarding this bad piece of news. In esssence, what was said?
5 p.m.
President, National Anti-Poverty Organization
I'm going to talk about the people I work with in my community and about the people from NAPO at the local, provincial, and national levels. The concern about all of these cuts is that poverty is at an all-time high right now. All these cuts are being made to social development programs, programs that poor people can access, programs that help people build self-esteem and self-confidence and move forward. The concern is that now with all these programs being cut, where are these people going to go? It's going to increase the depths of poverty. We're going to find more and more people living on the streets and in poverty now because all the resources are being taken away. That's the concern I'm hearing from the people I work with.
5 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Simser Consulting, Canadian Association of the Deaf
My comment is that when deaf people have more access to programs they are more productive. Therefore, they pay more taxes towards the government and contribute more to the Canadian economy. That's from my perception. The court challenges program is dependent on who uses the program. It's a way for people to use their freedom of expression and to ensure the values they stand for get heard.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
In your opinion, was this program democratic or anti-democratic? Can you please provide us with some details on this aspect?
5 p.m.
Executive Director, National Anti-Poverty Organization
Can you elaborate a bit on your question? What do you mean by that, just for clarification so I can try to respond?
5 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Was the program democratic in nature? Did it allow the poor to have equal access to justice, like the rich? In your case, did it provide equal opportunity for all to access justice?
5 p.m.
Executive Director, National Anti-Poverty Organization
I think the best way to answer that is looking at the--
5 p.m.
Executive Director, National Anti-Poverty Organization
My sense is, it's very much a democratic program, and many different groups have made use of it and received support from it. I think that's a good testimonial to its democratic effect. It hasn't been just one or two so-called special interest groups—a phrase I don't like—but many different types of groups have been able to access the programs.
5:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Simser Consulting, Canadian Association of the Deaf
As I said before, the program was open to anybody who would be able to use it. If a free and willing group would need to use it, they could go ahead and use that program. It was very democratic, to answer your question.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you very much for coming today.
Mr. Simser, I am very appreciative of the fight that goes on every day for deaf rights. My oldest daughter is severely handicapped in hearing and has had to fight her whole life for every right she's ever received in school. Needless to say, she's a very strong woman and is excelling.
I'm interested in the success you've had with this landmark decision to access services. I remember when I heard the decision, I had a question then, and it's a question I have now. You won these rights. Do you expect the government to actually enact these rights, or will you have to continue to fight to make those rights a reality?
5:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Simser Consulting, Canadian Association of the Deaf
I'm very happy to answer that question.
What happened on August 22 of this year was the Canadian Association of the Deaf had the result of that case published on the front page of The Globe and Mail. Also, the same day we had an e-mail from a client, a woman who was deaf. She didn't know about the news story, but she told me in her e-mail that her husband wanted an interview with Immigration Canada. He was trying to enter Canada. He was American and was planning on becoming Canadian, and he had an interview with Immigration Canada. However, when they asked for an interpreter to facilitate that interview, Immigration Canada said no. That was on the very same day that the decision was published and made news across Canada.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I'm not sure which one of you mentioned it, but the term was “fundamental principle”. I think that is what we're talking about here.
There seems to be a bit of an ideological discussion between one side of the table and the other in terms of the role of rights. There has been an opinion floated at this table, and I think with the Conservative Party in general, that it's really not fair if the majority can't access rights to limit rights of a minority. If it's a minority program, it should be open to the majority to go after minority rights.
I'd like both your perspectives on that. As groups who represent minorities, do you feel you've somehow unfairly disadvantaged the respective majorities?
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, National Anti-Poverty Organization
I could answer that on behalf of NAPO.
Fundamentally, the program exists to provide assistance to people or groups who otherwise wouldn't have the means to launch these court challenges. I would think the majority of Canadians would find it very difficult as individuals to launch their own court challenges in cases like this. It's not just those who are in the lower-income brackets. I would certainly put myself in the middle-income bracket, and I don't think I'd have the means to launch a court challenge of a case that might affect me. The example that was just given I think is a good example. That could be a middle-income, or even a higher-income individual.
I don't see this program as something that's serving minorities per se. I think we have to be careful of that.
I'll stop there.
5:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Simser Consulting, Canadian Association of the Deaf
I don't have anything really to add, except that the deaf community is a minority group. One out of 1,000 people in Canada use sign language. It's a very small group. So you are correct in saying they are a minority.
