Official Languages Committee on June 14th, 2007

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Excuse me, Mr. Benson, you say you have a small board of U.S. members, but your website shows that there are four members on the Canadian board, and four members on the American board. I feel that's more than a few; it is 50-50.

[Iain Benson]

That's not accurate. The Canadian board is more than four people. I was just on the phone with them recently, and there are way more than four people.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

It's coming from your website.

[Iain Benson]

It's out of date, I think.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Benson, thank you. I just want to confirm something else with--

[Iain Benson]

But you asked me a question; may I be permitted the courtesy of a response?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue.

I now have some questions for the Commission nationale des parents francophones, the Association des parents fransaskois and the Quebec Anglophone School Board Association.

Last Tuesday evening, I participated in what we call an adjournment debate at the House of Commons on the Court Challenges Program. On five occasions, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice referred to “criminal legal aid” in his four-minute response, and he concluded by saying:

Canada's new government is committed to continue funding for criminal legal aid.

Don't you find it a little bit ironic that, on my side of the chamber, I was talking about the Court Challenges Program and that, on five occasions in the four-minute response, the parliamentary secretary told us that we should not be concerned and that the Conservative government was funding criminal legal aid?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pablo Rodriguez]

That is all the time that we have.

Yes? No?

[Marcus Tabachnick]

Yes or no? Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pablo Rodriguez]

I'm sorry, but the three minutes are up.

Mr. Malo, you have three minutes.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Kheiriddin, you heard the comments made by Mrs. Pilon, Mr. Gauthier, Mr. Birnbaum and Mr. Tabachnick. You do not appear to oppose the demands made by these people nor do you feel that they are not entitled to defend their views as a minority language group. Am I mistaken?

[Tasha Kheiriddin]

No. I would like to make some clarifications.

In my presentation, I wanted to say that certain rights were different from others. Minority language rights go back to the Quebec Act of 1774. It would be different if we were to put these rights on a equal footing with the Charter Rights, which include, among other things, the right to equality, and to say that this protection should not be given. Moreover, the Official Languages Act includes a positive obligation, which differentiates it from other programs in various fields that are not necessarily defended by the government in the same way.

This is why I'm saying there's a difference between the two. I respect what they are saying. Remember, though, that whenever a program is cut, people who are affected by it will obviously be upset. This is natural. This is the dilemma governments face every day as to how to deal with this and balance interest.

What I'm saying here is that if there's a legal duty on the Government of Canada to preserve this particular program to abide by the law, then that is what this committee should be looking at. That is the narrow scope of the issue, not whether equality rights should be protected or other things. This is a committee for official languages, if I'm not mistaken. With all due respect, that's your mandate.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

So you have nothing against a support program which would enable these groups to express their opinions before the court?

[Tasha Kheiriddin]

If, legally speaking, there has to be such a program in order for the government to comply with the law, I am not against the idea. As I said, it is incumbent upon this committee to determine whether that is the case and, if so, to make the necessary recommendation. It is not about saying whether or not we should keep the program, first of all because it is not necessary, and then because it is not necessarily a good thing and, finally, because this is not a matter that comes under your purview.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Without saying so specifically, you are suggesting other solutions, solutions to respond to the requirement to protect and promote linguistic minorities. What are these solutions?

[Tasha Kheiriddin]

It is the government and not me who will decide on this matter. The government is sovereign and determines which programs it will establish in order to exercise its rights fully. It is important to remember that this is up to the discretion of the government. Parliament is always sovereign. If the government deems that this program is neither good nor necessary, it can choose to eliminate it. However, it would be a different matter should the law oblige the government to keep some aspects of it, and that is the heart of the matter. This is what must be determined here.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pablo Rodriguez]

Thank you, Ms. Kheiriddin and Mr. Malo. Three minutes goes by quickly.

Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to make a commentary in the last three minutes to defend the government's reputation with respect to rights, the protection of rights, the protection of both linguistic minorities and minority rights, and other minority rights.

The opposition, especially members of the Liberal Party, have been a little hypocritical on this. We're talking about a program here that costs the government about $2 million to $3 million a year.

The vast majority of access to the legal system in this country is provided through provincial legal aid programs. We're talking on a scale of 200 times the access. Legal aid programs together in this country spend close to half a billion dollars a year on access to the justice system.

I would point out that those programs are funded partly through fiscal federalism, through the transfer in the mid-1990s, through the CHST transfer, and today through the Canada social transfer.

I would also point out that if you look at what the previous government did with respect to support for access to the legal system, they put cuts in place that caused the government of Ontario, for example—just in one province—to cut access to the legal system from 280,000 certificates a year in the early 1990s to approximately 80,000 certificates a year by the mid-1990s. So we're talking about over 150,000 certificates a year that were lost in the mid-1990s. There were 150,000 cases of justice denied, because people did not have access to the legal system.

We have to put this in a bit of perspective. The government has been very good about defending minority and linguistic rights. Yes, we took a decision to cancel this program, because we felt that its mission had been fulfilled. But I think it's a little rich for members of the Liberal Party to be braying about rights, when you look at what happened in years past.

I just wanted to put that on the record, Mr. Chair.

[David Birnbaum]

If I might, with all due respect, we understand that the witnesses are here to testify. We can enjoy your debate between you.

With all due respect, as the beneficiaries of this program—and we're speaking for individuals in our communities—we would say that the program needs to be reinstated. We're not looking at any relative records between parties.

This government went to the United Nations and defended the program, noting that it would be continued until March 2009. Four months later, it was cancelled. We still don't know why.

We're telling you that these are evolved rights that need continued protection. There is one class of rights for equality or minority language groups, and the necessary programs....

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pablo Rodriguez]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

We will conclude with Ms. Savoie.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Merci.

Monsieur Gauthier spoke of article 23, which makes provisions to make good on the wrongs of the past, and I refer to high literacy levels.

During the last election, many francophones outside Quebec spoke to me and expressed a fear about a the possibility of the Conservatives being elected.

These francophones fear that their rights have been violated. Moreover, I had dared to believe that we had evolved sufficiently so that these things would never occur anymore, but I have realized that I was wrong when it was announced that this program had been abolished. I would agree that this program—and I am pleased that Mr. Gauthier mentioned it—could have or would have been useful in the future with respect to section 23, in that it could have a restorative effect and help francophones achieve further progress.

I would like to go quickly back to a question put by Mr. D'Amours. I too received the same answer from the minister of Justice, namely that criminal legal aid was not going to be eliminated. I do not see how that relates to the problem before us. Does one of you understand how the criminal legal aid program pertains to the abolition of this program?

I would like to begin with Mr. Birnbaum, please.

[David Birnbaum]

We find it hard to understand the logic behind such an observation.

[Marcus Tabachnick]

My answer remains the same.

[Tasha Kheiriddin]

I suppose that Mr. Toews was alluding to criminal law because the freedom of individuals was at issue and this is a very significant matter.

[Roger Gauthier]

I don't understand you. Most of the cases have nothing to do with criminal law.