Official Languages Committee on June 14th, 2007

[David Birnbaum]

It's a bit loud. It's okay.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Okay, I will repeat my question. If I understand correctly, your association was directly involved in a case that used the CCP. Is that correct? Did your association have access to the CCP, yes or no?

[David Birnbaum]

Not currently, but some years ago, the Quebec English School Boards Association did.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

What was the context of that case?

[David Birnbaum]

Well, simply put—

If you were a Canadian-born child who studied in English, under Bill 101 you would not have been able--as a Canadian citizen who grew up in English, one of Canada's official languages--to send your child to school in English in Quebec.

Thanks to the court challenges program,

this student, subject to Bill 101 and section 23 of the Constitution, can now attend English school.

That is one example, madam.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

So you were able to ensure access to your English schools thanks to the CCP. Have I understood correctly?

[Marcus Tabachnick]

Yes, there is a class of children who have this right thanks to Supreme Court rulings.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Okay.

To completely change the subject, I want to speak to everyone here. I know that the CCP is before the courts currently for a number of reasons. As a member of the government side, I will not talk about it. However, if you have any long-term solutions to suggest to the government, how would you see a system ensuring access to your linguistic rights? I know that they are part of the Charter.

[Marcus Tabachnick]

If I may, I don't think there's any disagreement that on the linguistic side this program should be put back in place. What we're saying is to do the right thing in a Canada that has evolved and changed is to reinstate the program the way it has been put in place, the way it has evolved, and if some of the rules need fixing, then sit down with the people who are responsible and will help to fix the rules.

You don't throw out the whole court challenges program when it's the right thing for a country that has evolved and it recognizes the evolution.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Okay.

[Iain Benson]

I'd like to suggest that what we need to do in Canada is pull the lens back and look at the problems we're causing by constant recourse to litigation. As I said, it's been recognized by some of our leading philosophers and theorists that litigation is not the way to form a culture over time. It produces a culture of winners and losers.

Now, I appreciate that in the minority language rights situation, your focus might be a little different from the thrust of my comments, which are directed more to situations where there are valid positions on both sides by citizens' groups.

Appreciate that, for example, again, to take one of the carrier issues of the day, same-sex marriage, the debates there were between legitimately holdable views between minority groups in many cases--Hindus, Sikhs, various kinds of religious groups who are also minorities that had what you could call a traditional viewpoint--and other groups that were maybe also minorities.

So it's not always the case that the program is set up to properly encourage dialogue, and I think we need to look at a way to really approach dialogue on key issues in Canada. It's essential that we do that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pablo Rodriguez]

You have one minute remaining, Ms. Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Ms. Pilon, earlier, you said that you had won a lot of cases. I think that they are mainly related to education, are they not?

[Ghislaine Pilon]

The vast majority of cases involving parents going to court concerned schools. There was no French education. If we hadn't gone to court, if we hadn't taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, there might not be very many francophones left. If our kids hadn't been educated in French, they wouldn't be able to speak it.

We have a bible, a Charter of Rights that we take for granted. No one enforces it. It's sad when you have to wait decades before going before the courts to avail yourself of rights that you already have. Without the Court Challenges Program, I can assure you that there wouldn't be many francophones outside Quebec. There wouldn't be many anglophones in Quebec either.

I find it extremely sad to be here yet again telling you why the Court Challenges Program has been so important to minorities and non-learners. People in wheelchairs couldn't access our buildings without this program. They went to court for that right.

The provinces don't even protect our rights. We have to fight all the time. I know parents who have fought for decades, and their children did not attend French schools. I find it extremely sad to be here yet again repeating the same things and trying to find solutions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pablo Rodriguez]

Thank you, Ms. Pilon. I must interrupt you. I apologize, but that is all the time we have.

Thank you, Ms. Boucher.

We'll now start the second round, with five minutes each this time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to get right to it.

I just want to comment on Mr. Benson's testimony, rapidly. I'm not asking a question here.

First of all, the concept of a constitutional forum is an interesting one, and personally, I wouldn't mind investigating that a bit. But when you're arguing that the court challenges program is one-sided and that in society both sides need to be heard, I couldn't agree more. But in the case that we have described, I believe there's a limit to the amount of money that the court challenges program will give on any case—maybe $75,000, and I'd have to verify that—and in every single case that has gone before the tribunals, there has been someone arguing the other side, governments, whether the Government of Canada, or governments of the provinces, and they have limitless amounts of money arguing contra what's being argued via the court challenges program. So to insinuate that currently it's all one-sided, I'd have a bit of a difficulty with that.

I want to go to Madame Kheiriddin. I listened carefully and I read your February article in the National Post, and I can only infer from that that you agree that the cut of the program was ideological in nature.

[Tasha Kheiriddin]

I don't think the cut was ideological in nature. I think the program actually was ideological in nature from its inception--not the official languages part, in 1978, that was different; I wouldn't qualify that as ideological.

But on the cut to the whole program, the program had grown into one that was funding one side of the argument to the exclusion of the other, as Mr. Benson said. It's not just a question of one side having limitless resources—i.e., the government—and one side will now have some money to take a challenge. What it means is that the program determines what challenges are brought, and that is what changes the evolution of the law.

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

I have only five minutes, so please....

I'm reading into it—and if I'm reading too much into it, tell me quickly—that indeed there was an ideological component to the decision to cut the court challenges program last fall.

[Tasha Kheiriddin]

No, I'm saying that it actually levels the playing field between groups. There has been 25 years of this; we don't need it any more.

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

When it was cut, the government presented this as a cut because it was inefficient and a waste.

[Tasha Kheiriddin]

Well, there are examples of that, if you'll permit me.

The program was spending $1,421 per application on public awareness instead of actually on the program itself.

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

It's my time, excuse me.

There was a Supreme Court ruling where there was some interesting language about the nature of our Constitution, our Charter of Rights, and that it is a breathing, living document, if I recall the words, equating it to a tree that is growing. Do you agree with that?

[Tasha Kheiriddin]

I agree that a constitution such as ours is a living tree, but that does not make it incumbent on a government to fund every single program under the sun. They can choose. Parliament is still sovereign in terms of the programs they fund to pursue certain goals.

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

Of course.

Do you agree with the reference to the Supreme Court on secession? In the couple of minutes I have left, I want to explore this reading-in concept that you bring up.

There were a number of unwritten principles established in the ruling of the Supreme Court on the reference on secession. Are you familiar with that?

[Tasha Kheiriddin]

I am familiar with the reference, but not the fine detail of it.