Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 13th, 2006

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much to the witnesses for coming today. You've been very eloquent. I just wish half the Conservatives on this committee weren't missing, because I'm sure they would have learned from your testimony today.

I'd like to go to Mr. Tabachnick and Mr. Birnbaum to start, because in a very real sense what you're talking about is the choice available to parents. I think Mr. Rollason spoke to that earlier, that the parents who are in a dilemma where the government is refusing to give them the choices and the rights they need to have for their children, essentially by eliminating this program, those parents collectively won't have an opportunity to fight for those choices for their children.

Would that be an accurate assessment, that this takes away from parents actually being able to choose what's best for their kids through assuming their rights and reinforcing their rights?

[Marcus Tabachnick]

I would agree with your statement.

I don't know how many of you have ever tried to close a school in somebody's neighbourhood. I can tell you that I have lots of experience in doing that. Parents and communities will do a tremendous amount to try to save their schools. They have recourse against a level of government, which school boards are, to the courts, and they make use of it—trust me, I can attest to it.

However, what you're saying, then, on the bigger scale, is that that ability isn't available to the community as a whole, as it is affected as a whole. That's not acceptable, that one level of government is not allowed to be questioned on whatever program, for whatever reason, it has decided to put into place in law. We need the ability to challenge ourselves in order to ensure that what we're doing is best for everybody.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you for your testimony.

I'd like to come back to the issue that Ms. St-Amand, Ms. Lalonde and Mr. Caza raised about francophone groups.

Francophones pay taxes and fund the federal government. The latter may then use those resources to crush these minorities, if it wants, and that seems to be the road it intends to follow. Francophone minorities will not have the opportunity to oppose having their rights trampled on, because they won't have the resources to do so.

Do you feel that this decision by the Conservative government is truly being made at the expense of francophone communities and the other linguistic minority, that is, the anglophone community in Quebec?

[Gisèle Lalonde]

Whenever francophones want to raise any funds for any purpose—for instance, I am currently co-chair of the hospital foundation—it is very difficult for us to do because we do not have major corporations outside of Quebec. In Quebec everyone knows that there is the Hôpital Sainte-Justine, other major hospitals, etc.

However here, we face fierce opposition from anglophones. For instance there are major hospitals like the Ottawa Hospital and its Civic Campus, the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. And then there is the Hôpital Montfort which is a small francophone hospital trying to obtain some money. It's very difficult.

It is hard not having the same sources of funding. We even went so far as to travel throughout Canada to try to find some support. It makes no sense. It is unimaginable that a minority group could prevail over a strong government like that of Ontario, Alberta or elsewhere.

[David Birnbaum]

I would like us to get over the idea that we are advocating for programs which only matter to minorities. A few years ago, in Quebec, a poll asked the following question: Should the anglophone linguistic minority have access to essential health services in its languages?

A vast majority of Quebeckers irrespective of the language they spoke said yes. I find that it is very important to clearly state that we are referring to a program which matters to all Canadians, regardless of whether or not they are members of a majority.

Just as a second point, I think the groups here would want noted for the record, from our non-partisan point of view, our observation about the lack of participation from the government side today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, thanks to all of you for attending today.

I note that there appear to be two approaches among you. All of you are defenders of language minorities in Canada, but a couple of you have clearly taken a partisan position; certainly the first speaker has.

I also note, Ms. St-Amand and Mr. Tabachnick, that both of you referred to this as a non-partisan issue, as did Mr. Birnbaum. I do appreciate that, because this is not a party-against-party issue, and it shouldn't be. It should be an issue of policy that we can discuss and debate.

Are any of you aware of language minorities that have actually sought to assert their rights in the courts without CCP funding? Are there organizations that defend minority language rights that have done so without accessing the public purse?

[Marcus Tabachnick]

We're an association that defends that right, but we don't have the means to fight, in front of the highest court of the land, to get a definitive final decision on the applicability of any particular law.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

But I'm wondering, are there some individuals who have moved forward and have actually been able to do it from their own resources? That's a legitimate question to ask.

[Marcus Tabachnick]

And it's happened.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Caza.

[Ronald Caza]

I must say, I think it's very rare. To give you one example of when it would happen, if a union, say, was involved in a file, they may have the financial means to be able to litigate. That would be an example.

However, if you look at all the case law--and we rely on that case law when we go to court--I can't think of any in which there was no involvement at all from the court challenges program. People have had to go beyond it on some occasions.

So I'd have to think back on it, but I'm not aware of—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

What about the Quigley case, Mr. Caza, which I think you were involved with? I think Mr. Bélanger is very much aware of it as well. I believe that was a situation where an English minority applicant applied to the court challenges program and was not successful in obtaining funding. That individual did pursue the matter through the courts, through the help of other individuals.

Is that not correct?

[Ronald Caza]

I may be wrong here--I'd have to go back and look at the Quigley decision--but I think the lawyer acting on behalf of Mr. Quigley was his son. I could be wrong on that, but I think he took the case.

There were issues of legal fees, but again, I'd have to look back on what happened at the end of the day.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I understand, Mr. Caza, that there were legal fees in excess of $100,000 that were incurred, which were borne by a number of individuals. So it is possible—

[Ronald Caza]

I have to tell you that if somebody out there is willing to spend their own resources for whatever reason, and they have those resources to spend, I think the issue is that they may have access to the court. That's exactly what we've been saying.

[A voice]

No.

[Ronald Caza]

Yes, it is.

Access to the court cannot just be by people who have money. People who access the court challenges program, for the most part, are either organizations or individuals that don't have the money to go to court. That's why they apply. If they do have the funds—and some people may have the funds, there may be people who have the financial means to be able to litigate a linguistic right--they'll have access to the courts. The situation is that most of the members of the community and people who have in fact brought these cases forward do not have the financial means. That's why they're accessing the court challenges program.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Perhaps I could just close with one question. This is perhaps a more encouraging, positive question.

Rather than having a general program defending not only minority language rights but also equality rights and some of the other rights under the charter, if our government were able to come up with a plan that would focus on minority language rights specifically, is that something you would welcome?

[David Birnbaum]

We would greatly welcome it, with the proviso that like any law adopted by a government it would be subject to the full scrutiny of the courts and complete access to those courts. Otherwise we would have difficulties understanding the full value of that law, no matter how well it was written.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Understood. I'm making the assumption that it would do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Could you keep your response very short?

[Gisèle Lalonde]

Could I answer the gentleman?

He accused us of being a little partisan. Well, I can tell you that I was a Conservative once, and I even ran in Ottawa—Vanier for the Conservatives.

The bad experiences we've had are that it has twice been taken out at the federal level, both times by Conservative governments.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I—

[Gisèle Lalonde]

I'm sorry, but I would like to speak to you. You accused me, and I would like to answer you.