Evidence of meeting #28 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 courts.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Executive Directeur, Canadian Constitution Foundation
That is where the discrimination comes in!
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
You may call that discriminatory, but I must confess that we might not agree with you.
May I get an answer from the other panellists? Do you apply your approach to equality to linguistic rights as well?
5:20 p.m.
National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada
I don't know why people cannot raise their own money for language rights. I totally support bilingualism, but I don't see why the government is paying out money when people themselves can raise the money. Why is the government into this court business anyway? It's not appropriate. Whether it's for language or equality rights, taxpayers' money can be put to better uses.
5:20 p.m.
President, Canada Christian College
I have a colleague who is originally from Korea. Should he have the same language rights in this country? This is where we get into the process where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.
When we have a court challenges program like this making arbitrary decisions on who is going to get funding.... I don't see funding for Koreans to have equal access to language in this country. We have an organization that does not treat Canadians equally in their funding, therefore we should go back to a level playing field and allow all Canadians to put forward their particular language rights.
5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada Family Action Coalition
My response is really a question. You're talking about language rights, your language rights specifically being denied in Ontario. If that is so, is it the Government of Canada that's denying those, or should the court action actually be taken against the people who are actually denying those rights?
Language is no different from any other right, in my opinion. If we're going to go to individual rights, then we have to cover all of the rights. But I'm not so sure we have a program that actually would address your Ontario language rights at the federal level. I'm not sure we should be going to a federal level.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
It's called section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sir.
5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada Family Action Coalition
I understand that, but I don't think it's necessarily the Government of Canada and certainly not the taxpayers of Canada who are denying your rights.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
On the matter of judicial interventions or perhaps the judicial having too much authority, may I have a reaction to the concept that the courts in our country are essentially doing what Parliament has asked them to do when it established in the early 1980s the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and expected the courts, right up to the Supreme Court, to interpret these, and kept the ability to have the final say with the notwithstanding clause.
I heard comments that indeed we have judicial activism here and they're taking over the authority of Parliament. My sense is that as a legislator I don't feel threatened by the courts, knowing that if the courts do something that as a legislator I could not support, I have the ability to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Would you have some reactions to that view of the judicial versus the legislature?
5:25 p.m.
National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada
Yes. What's happened since the charter came in, actually the equality section in 1985 and the charter in 1982, is that the court has taken more and more authority and widened its jurisdiction. It was never intended to be what it has turned out to be, and it's usurping the role of Parliament.
Parliament was to represent and reflect the views of the people. You have nine appointed people on the Supreme Court of Canada who are..... I can tell you about the Schachter case, for example. I can give you a whole bunch of cases that indicate the court has accrued to itself far more jurisdiction than the wording of the charter actually conveyed to them.
I think we are threatened as a democracy, that all these very profound issues are being decided according to--I'm afraid to say it, but I'll say it--the ideology and the philosophy of nine appointed individuals, when it should be for Parliament to speak. Parliament is set up to speak for people. It has the access to the research, I've said before. It has access to all the social facts, which is never available to the court. Also, Parliament can make—
5:25 p.m.
National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada
—compromises, which the court can't do. It's black or white.
So I think it has usurped it. I think the cases right from 1985 on, when the equality section came into effect, have gradually given more and more power to the court by their own decisions and widened their jurisdiction, which was never the intention at the time the charter was brought in, in 1982.
5:25 p.m.
President, Canada Christian College
I think everyone respects the position of the court to interpret the law, and that must be respected in our country. However, we do not respect the issue of the courts writing the laws. They are not hired to write laws; they are hired to interpret laws. Unfortunately, in some of these instances, the courts have overstepped their mandates.
5:25 p.m.
Executive Directeur, Canadian Constitution Foundation
To the question, are the courts doing what Parliament asked them to do, I would say, generally, yes, and because of that courts have become very powerful, far more so than pre-1982, and the court challenges program, through its biased funding, has distorted the legal process.
5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada Family Action Coalition
I would pretty much agree with that. I think the distortion of the process itself...and maybe there needs to be some dialogue between legislators and courts to bring the perspective back to who actually does make the decisions and how do the discrepancies unfold.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you.
I must say thank you very much for appearing today and answering the questions as you have.
We'll take a short break, and then we have to come back to deal with some motions.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
We'll call the meeting to order again, if we could, please. We'll carry on with our committee business.
We have before us four notices of motion from Maka Kotto, if we can move them.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I think we're going to have to deal with it on Wednesday.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I don't know whether we'll have time.
To start with, how do you want to proceed with these?
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
If possible, I would like to give priority to the third and first, and cover the rest subsequently.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
So we're going to deal with, first:
Whereas it should be possible to develop film production everywhere;
Whereas all the decision-making for the television industry in Quebec is centred in Montréal;
Whereas only 3% of television production in Quebec takes place outside Montréal;
Whereas there is a shortage of regional development;
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommends that the government, as a matter of urgency, take adequate measures to stimulate regional film and television production, in Quebec and Canada, and to ensure that an enhanced tax credit is granted for film production outside the major centres; and that the Chair report to the House.
That is the motion before us.
Mr. Kotto, do you want to speak to the motion first, or Mr. Bélanger?
Mr. Bélanger.