Debates of April 23rd, 1998

Court Challenges Program

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to adopt and pass this motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House and defend the Court Challenges Program, anything which assists in putting meat on the bones of the charter.

We know that a right in law is not much use to somebody who cannot afford it or does not have the means by which to enforce it. To hear members of parliament suggest that having a right and having the inability to enforce it is nothing other than a taking away justice for those people is surprising.

We have a modest program which is available only to those who are disadvantaged in our society who are contending that their charter rights are not being respected to historically disadvantaged groups and those who have over time suffered most at the hands of the majority. One would have thought that members of parliament would be here to protect those very people and to do what they could to ensure their rights are protected and enhanced.

The program is a modest one. It provides modest support to those who have a case to make. The decision whether to support a program does not, as the member for Wanuskewin suggested, mean that the Court Challenges Program is doing the job of the court or this House. The Court Challenges Program and the experts who are there to dispense these relatively modest amounts are of the view that the case is one which is in the public interests to debate and one in which the person bringing it forward in the public interest is in need of some support in order to do that.

The program is unique and fundamentally an important one in the sense that it provides the opportunity to generate some substantive equality in Canada where that is presently not in place. It is limited in funds and it is limited to challenges to federal laws, policies and practices.

I ask those who would want to throw this program away do they not see some benefit in that program. Is their desire to throw that program way driven by ideology and not by common sense? I cannot believe that the member who wants to get rid of the Court Challenges Program would not be in support of the Court Challenges Response in assisting, for example, the Eldridge case, a deaf women to assert her right to sign language interpretation when she is communicating with physicians in her quest for health care.

Is there something wrong with that? Is there something wrong with ensuring that a woman who is deaf and who can only communicate through sign language can assert her right to be accommodated so that she can be treated as everyone else? I cannot believe that many in Canada would oppose assisting a woman in that situation.

Neither can I imagine that there would be many in Canada who would oppose the support to persons of colour who work for CIDA and who are asserting that there has been systemic racism in the employment practices of that department. It is not whether it is true. Surely we would want to support those who assert that it is true and who are affected by a practice which we would all condemn. Are there many in this country who would say that we should not as a society support someone in that quest to eliminate racism in a federal government department? Those who are saying we should get rid of this program would I suppose say that is not a very important question, racism in employment practices in government departments. I contend that most Canadians would disagree with that.

What about the case of an Indian woman who is being denied the right to participate in band elections? We hear a lot from the Reform Party about the need for accountability in Indian affairs. Here is an opportunity to support someone who is trying to ensure that there indeed is greater participation, greater democracy in Indian band elections. Would there be many who would legitimately complain about that?

What about the case of Tracey Smith, an aboriginal woman with children in both the United States and Canada? She is challenging immigration policies which prevent her from freely crossing the border to be with her children. We hear much from the Reform Party about families. Why would we not assist this mother to clarify this plainly unfair situation? Why would we not assist her so that she can be with her children, her family? I find it odd that those who argue so strenuously that they speak for families would not assist a mother to be with her children.

I am sure that few would disagree with the Court Challenges Program in its assistance to disabled persons. We know for example that immigrant status is generally denied to persons with physical disabilities. We must all have experienced the case of members of a family wanting to immigrate to Canada and finding they are faced with a choice of leaving their disabled child in their country of origin or in another place and coming to Canada with the rest of their family or not coming at all.

We should support those who try to resolve those kinds of disputes, the kind of thing the Court Challenges Program looks to assist a person with.

We have also experienced significant difficulties on behalf of our constituents with disability pensions. I am sure we have all seen the unfairness of that system. Why would we then not support the Court Challenges Program when it assists a disabled person to challenge the eligibility requirements for disability benefits which have adversely affected them?

It seems this program has provided a useful service to Canadians. It has enabled us to ensure that rights contained in the charter of rights and freedoms mean something to those who otherwise would not have the means to enforce them.

There are many cases in which the Court Challenges Program has provided Canada and our society and our community with significant benefits. Take the case of Mark Benner. He was born of a Canadian mother and an American father in the United States. Children born abroad of Canadian fathers do not have to apply for citizenship. Canadians born overseas of Canadian mothers do, which is a plain discrimination.

Why would anybody think it would be undesirable to assist Mark Benner in clarifying and changing this situation? Is there something justifiable about that discrimination? I think not. Would it not be useful then for us as a community and a society together to provide some support for that case?

The case which seems to have raised the member for Wanuskewin's ire most of all is that which is being brought and supported by the Court Challenges Program by Dr. Ailsa Warkinson from Saskatoon regarding section 43 of the Criminal Code. That provision provides a defence to a charge of assault against a child victim, that is child abuse, to a parent or a teacher who uses reasonable force for the purposes of correction.

There are a number of cases identified by Dr. Warkinson in which that argument, that defence, has been used to gain acquittal even in serious assault cases against children.

I cannot fathom any reason why anybody would want to be critical, oppose or stop either Dr. Warkinson or the Court Challenges Program in trying to do something about a very serious problem and, if we are really concerned about children, something we should be very seriously concerned about.

It is disturbing to see an obsession with opposition to anything governments do overriding common sense and overriding something that has been useful to many individual Canadians and to us as a society.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this motion today to speak against it. The issue we are debating is of great importance to Canada. It touches the heart of what defines our country. It deals with the core attributes of modern democratic societies. It focuses on the ideal of equality before the law which Canada pursues actively and for which it is recognized internationally.

I think it is ironic that today of all days we would be debating this motion when there is a delegation of members of parliament from South Africa touring today. That country has modelled its own program after the Canadian program.

The issue is the Court Challenges Program, which the opposition would like to kill. This program is a symbol of the Canadian commitment to democracy. It is also a tangible demonstration of our progressive Canadian identity.

We on this side of the House, and I gather members over there as well, are proud to have created this program and to have reinstated it in 1994 after a previous government discontinued it.

This government firmly believes that in a free and democratic society fundamental rights have to be protected and interpreted by the courts in a manner that reflects contemporary society.

When the Liberals reinstated the Court Challenges Program at a time of severe fiscal restraint, we made a deliberate choice at that time because the government is committed to and believes in a Canada where fundamental rights are respected and furthered.

In April of this year we signed a new contribution agreement to secure additional annual funding of $2.75 million for this program until the year 2003. The government stands by that commitment and is therefore not supportive of the motion we are debating today.

The Court Challenges Program was first established in 1978 to assist court challenges in relation to language minority rights. In 1982 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force, entrenching basic freedoms and democratic, political, legal equality, language and aboriginal rights, and the fundamental law of the land. That same year the mandate of the program was broadened to include language rights guaranteed under the charter.

In 1985 the government expanded the program further to include funding for equality rights cases arising under section 15 of the charter. The program has played a significant role in bringing before the courts those cases which have helped to define and advance language and equality rights guaranteed in the Constitution. It has already led to a number of key decisions and its usefulness has already been very well established.

Examples in the area of equality rights include the Andrews case on the overall definition of the concept of equality, the Swain case on the rights of mentally disabled people, the Tétreault-Gadoury case on the rights of persons over the age of 65, the Canadian newspaper case involving the provisions in the Criminal Code which protect the confidentiality of sexual assault victims, and the Butler case concerning the constitutional validity of the Criminal Code pornography provisions.

In the area of language rights there were the Forest, Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick and Mercure cases concerning legal bilingualism, the reference re Manitoba in 1985 and 1992 and the Sinclair case concerning legislative bilingualism, the Ford judgment on freedom of expression and the right to use languages other than French on public signs in Quebec, and the Mahé case on the education rights provided in section 23 of the charter.

The Court Challenges Program was designed to provide access to the courts for groups and individuals who would not otherwise be able to challenge government policies and practices related to constitutional and charter rights.

It provides a means for enforcing and clarifying the law. Since 1985 the program has received over 1,000 applications for funding. The program has funded several hundred challenges and a number of them made their way to the Supreme Court of Canada where judgments were rendered favourable to the group or individual funded in almost half the cases.

The program had some 350 language rights and equality case files before it when it produced its most recent annual report in March 1997. Clearly there is a need to pursue the program and to develop further charter jurisprudence in the areas of language and equality rights.

Canadians will be pleased to know that third party evaluations have confirmed that the program is well administered by an arm's length, non-profit agency with representatives from the private bar, non-governmental organizations and academics. It has clear rules and procedures for providing funding.

The program provides assistance only for test cases of national significance involving federal and provincial language rights protected by the Constitution of Canada as well as challenges to federal legislation, policies and practice based on section 2 of the charter dealing with fundamental freedoms and sections 15, 27 and 28 dealing with equality and gender equality.

Funding proposals are reviewed by two independent panels: the equality rights panel and the language rights panel. Members of the panel are chosen by independent selection committees after consultation with over 300 community groups.

Members of the selection committees and panels volunteer hundreds of hours of work to pursue the clarification of constitutional rights all of us have. They play an important role in building a free and democratic society in Canada. The government takes this opportunity to thank them for their work and dedication on behalf of all Canadians.

As reflected in its decision of 1994 to reinstate the Court Challenges Program the government is committed to advancing constitutionally based equality and language rights. Allowing a variety of voices to be heard on these rights is essential to maintain the social, economic and cultural vitality of Canada that has distinguished our country internationally and that all Canadians can be proud of.

The program plays a pivotal role in ensuring the ongoing adjustment of the interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in protecting the rights of all Canadians. With the support of Canadians the government will continue to support the Court Challenges Program in the years to come. All Canadians and all citizens of the world can be proud of this accomplishment.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion introduced by my Reform Party colleague. This motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should withdraw all funding from the Federal Court Challenges Program.

I would like to tell the House immediately that the Bloc Quebecois is strongly opposed to the member's motion, having given it lengthy and honest consideration.

The Court Challenges Program was created to fund legal cases having to do with the defence of equality and linguistic rights. In moving such a motion, it is evident that my Reform Party colleague is unaware of the importance of preserving these rights in a society such as ours.

Section 15 of the Charter protects the right of every citizen not to be subjected to discrimination. Is there any right more important than that of equal recognition for every individual?

A society cannot claim to be free and democratic if it does not adequately protect the right of its citizens to be treated without discrimination. With this in mind, we must make the necessary tools available so that those whose rights have been trampled can demand appropriate redress.

Some members are apparently under the impression that it is easy to take a case of discrimination before the courts. It is important to know that victims of discrimination think twice before launching into a long and costly legal proceeding.

The grounds for appeal against unjustified discrimination are not always easily determined. The line between what is considered discriminatory and what is considered a justified distinction is sometimes a very fine one.

It is therefore essential that these people be able to count on something like the Court Challenges Program to help them obtain justice.

The program provides financial assistance for cases appealing legislation that may deny rights to equality. It also, and this is very important, helps people express their linguistic rights.

Once again, I would point out the implication of the recognition of language rights. Section 133 of the Constitution of 1867 provides for the optional and mandatory use of the French and English languages. Furthermore, the charter of rights and freedoms contains certain provisions on protecting the use of the official languages.

Some will claim, and rightly so, moreover, that language rights are not sufficiently promoted. French language services are certainly not provided all across Canada. Language rights are as important in a society such as ours as equal rights. It is through language that people express themselves and make themselves understood. Language provides expression to our emotions, our dissent, our approval and our feelings.

Democracy cannot function properly if the public cannot make its voice heard. Justice will not be served if those who come before the courts cannot make themselves understood there in their own language.

The reason the court challenges program supports people wishing to protect their language rights is to preserve the delicate balance between the official languages. The program provides funding for preparing court cases and for pre-trial research.

The court challenges program is essential to ensure that everyone has access to justice. That said, what explanation can there be for the hon. member's proposal that the program funding be terminated? This is incomprehensible. One would have to be very short-sighted and narrow-minded to propose such a thing.

In proposing such a motion, the hon. member will certainly attempt to find support in the policies of the former Conservative government, which had decided to put an end to the program, to kill it. It is important to keep in mind that the Minister of Justice of the day, Kim Campbell, the colleague of future Quebec Liberal Party leader Jean Charest, had used the difficult economic climate of 1992 as justification for termination of the program's funding

At a time when the federal budget surplus could reach several billion dollars, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the hon. member's motion. I am not, moreover, alone in wondering what lies behind the Reform member's proposal. I would invite him to justify it to the members of the Fédération des francophones de Saskatchewan, who are this very day here in Ottawa calling for their province to become bilingual.

In a release issued today, the president of the federation said, and I quote “The ethnocide of the French-speaking minority has always been perpetuated by provincial governments in areas such as education, health and social services, while the federal government looked the other way”. In such a context, it is completely inconceivable that a member would dare to move the withdrawal of funding from this program.

In addition, in its June 1992 report, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons—the Bloc was not there at the time—concluded that the program played an essential role by giving individuals access to the courts. The Court Challenges Program has become indispensable to the development of equality and linguistic rights case law.

The Bloc Quebecois feels not only that funding for the Court Challenges Program must be maintained, but that improvement of the program would be justified. I urge my colleagues opposite to give this some thought.

The inequality that has existed with respect to historically disadvantaged groups is justification for preserving such a program. We must ensure adequate access to the courts and make it possible for rulings having to do with the violation of equality and linguistic rights in our society to be enforced.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Reform Motion No. 327. The motion, as has been stated, already calls for the government to withdraw all funding for the federal Court Challenges Program, the program presently administered out of Winnipeg.

It was mentioned by the member proposing the motion that the money currently available is $2.5 million. As described by my colleague in the New Democratic Party, this is really a modest sum when one looks at the overall money spent in the present court system relative to what the government spends on a single case. For example, the Airbus case would probably double that total budget.

The federal Court Challenges Program was established in 1968, as indicated by the Department of the Secretary of State, to fund challenges to federal and provincial language rights protected under the Constitution of 1867. The overall objective clearly was to clarify rights and freedoms as protected by the charter.

In 1982 the program was expanded to include language rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 1985 the administration of the program was vested in the Canadian Council on Societal Development.

In 1990 it was moved to the human rights research and education centre at the University of Ottawa. In 1992 admittedly the Progressive Conservative government cancelled the Court Challenges Program based on the need at that time to cut spending and the deficit. It was subsequently reinstated, as has been indicated in the Chamber, by the Liberal government in 1994.

However there is an historical fact that needs to be on the record, and that is that the Campbell government was prepared and had a platform that called for a reinstatement of a program similar to one that was in place. I will speak to that later in my remarks. Were it not for a slight electoral shift that occurred in 1993, which some might call an earthquake or even the earth opening up and swallowing us whole, the program would have been in place in a somewhat revised form.

Since then and what we have now is a fiscal situation where the deficit has been harnessed much through the work of previous administrations and those policies that were carried on by the current government. This brings into question the basis of the motion questioning the funding and the motivation behind the particular program.

Parliamentarians have to stop and question the legitimacy and the necessity of a program such as this one. The federal Court Challenges Program has been of real benefit in several important legal decisions in the country. The program allows Canadians to clarify the Canadian charter rights that exist. However it was not intended to give a perpetual fund for lobby groups, particularly lobby groups that may have some spurious intent. The suggestion that we should cancel the program outright is the usual solution we sometimes hear in the Chamber where we throw the baby out with the bath water.

The suggestion I will be putting forward is that the program is necessary, but there are perhaps some improvements that could be made. There has been mention of the fact that the program is susceptible to manipulation and perhaps abuse if that money is made too readily available. This can be addressed by having assurances in place that a strict criterion must be met, a criterion with respect to the cause and the need. That currently exists. As in all situations involving boards and administrators, what we have to see is a more diligent approach and perhaps a more proactive effort made to ensure that the criterion is met.

Obviously what the country does not need and what our legal system does not need is more spurious challenges to the court. We have seen in recent years Canada becoming an overlitigious society. We see the courts called upon daily to rule upon issues that seem to me, and I am sure to some Canadians, to be issues of common sense that could be applied and settled far from the chambers of the courts.

That being said, the Progressive Conservative Party and I believe there is legitimate need for a program such as this one. The government should remain committed to equality rights for all Canadians and should therefore continue to support a program that will flesh out or allow a forum for individuals who feel oppressed to access resources they might need to pursue those rights in the courts. I think there can be no other or no more important purpose for a fund such as this one.

Thousands of charter rulings in the courts have been handed down in recent years. These decisions are critical to the operation of our justice system and to the operation of Canadian society generally. Morals are sometimes shaped there. Ideological ideas are given a forum for discussion. Legal issues are explored in a more detailed fashion.

We have become a more rights oriented society as a result of the charter. However the charter of rights and freedoms has also become an agent of change in this country. Pursuing cases through the courts is a critical and crucial part of this avenue for change.

The court process of course can be very long and arduous. It is a process that at times is beyond the reach and beyond the economic capacity of some individuals who wish to challenge rights or infringements of their rights.

Calling for a blanket removal of this fund I suggest is not the answer. It was for these very reasons that the original program was put in place, to establish test cases which deal with certain provisions of the charter. It does not mean that this program should be abused or that charter rights should be brought forward at every turn of the road.

A further suggestion one might make with respect to the improvement of the federal Court Challenges Program would be that one could perhaps look at reducing or in some ways adding to the funding by the invitation of other groups in the community being permitted to contribute to the fund itself.

I would suggest that provincial bar societies might be canvassed. Other civil rights groups that feel strongly that this fund should remain in place should be invited to contribute. I suggest that this would in fact enhance the present program. It would also recognize the importance of ensuring that this mechanism which is available for bringing forward significant test cases to clarify the charter law would continue.

The Conservative Party of Canada has always embraced this concept. We would put forward the suggestion that we could improve and build upon the present program. That is not to say there should be more money necessarily poured into it by government, but it should be open perhaps to other sources for funding. Adapting the present program is a suggestion we put forward.

The new charter law program might also differ from the actual federal Court Challenges Program in that it would be used to test federal laws not only under equality of language provisions of the charter, but also under fundamental freedoms provisions such as those of freedom of speech, conscience, religion and others.

There does not have to be a trend toward either a left wing or a right wing movement or challenges in the court. It should certainly be open. Again I refer back to the necessity of criteria.

Tightening the requirements and the criteria would be the way to combat some of the suggestions put forward by the mover of the motion that have led to the abuses.

Another way or a new way of administering the program would also have the double advantage of reducing federal funds without killing this existing program. The purpose here is not to encourage lengthy and costly court cases, but to build upon the charter law and the usefulness this program provides.

Before approving any funding for a court case, the program would have to satisfy the issue of it being a new and significant issue and one of national significance.

This brings me to the closing point I would like to make. Unfortunately there is an emergence in Canada where courts are being called upon ever more to delve into the area of policy. It is extremely important that the parliamentary process and the sanctity of parliament in making and passing laws be enhanced and always be buttressed by those who arrive in this chamber.

In closing I would just say that the courts should be satisfied that they are not the exclusive defenders of the charter. For the reasons I have set out, we cannot support this motion.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge your indication of the time and I want to make sure my colleague has the opportunity to sum up at the end of the debate.

I want to follow on the comments of the hon. member who just spoke. I found it interesting that he on the one hand calls for accountability through the democratic process and for policy to be shaped by the democratic process, yet intertwined in his talk is support for the Court Challenges Program. I found a real inconsistency when we look at what is actually going on here.

My experience prior to coming to this great House was that I worked in a business environment and had some exposure to certain business practices. One of the things that is brought to mind is the generally accepted accounting principles and practices that are norms and structures for the business environment.

Why are those principles put in place? They are there to ensure that business processes are structured in such a way that there is not even the appearance of a conflict of interest or the appearance of misuse. They protect the processes against any kind of misuse. The problem with the Court Challenges Program is it does not have that kind of protection for the taxpayer.

One of the new terms we have heard coined in Canada lately is the term of judicial activism. I see that as the will of special interest groups using unelected judges to override the parliamentary or democratic process which if successful imposes the will of the minority on the majority. This is of particular concern to us with this program.

Since the charter of rights, and the hon. member who just spoke made mention of this, many social policy debates have shifted from the political arena and from the democratic process into the courts. My concern and the concern of many of the members of my party is that special interest groups are imposing their particular positions on the will of the majority.

Policy matters should properly be handled not by taxpayer funded special interest groups presenting their cases before unelected judges but by common support and elected representatives debating and deciding these issues in parliament and legislatures. This is the foundation of our country, the democratic process, yet we are seeing it overridden by programs like the Court Challenges Program.

I quote an example. The Lawyers Weekly , in a 1992 issue stated that 75% of the Women's Legal and Education Fund, LEAF for short, which is known as a feminist activist group, had interventions before the Supreme Court of Canada which were funded by the Court Challenges Program. Many of their interventions were funded by this program. The group LEAF intervened on a number of cases. Borowski, Daigle, Lemay and Sullivan were all cases dealing with the laws around abortion. In these same cases another group, REAL Women of Canada, had also been granted intervenor status by the Supreme Court of Canada but they were refused funding by the Court Challenges Program.

Regardless of where one sits on these particular cases or on this issue, there is a fairness issue here that is obvious. Even if one is going to endorse this program one would think there would be some component of fairness. But when one side of the argument is funded and not the other and it is done in such a heavily weighted fashion, there are clearly some significant problems with the process.

These are the kinds of examples which illustrate that certain groups with certain ideologies and certain opinions are being endorsed and funded by taxpayers. I liken it to being forced to pay someone to beat you up with a stick. That is what is happening to Canadian taxpayers thanks to this program.

I know my time is short so I will move to my concluding remarks to ensure that my colleague has time to summarize.

Our party's position is that we would like to ensure that the foundation which built this country, the democratic process that gives Canadians an opportunity to shape policy in the public arena but not through the court system is what is entrenched. Those are all detailed in our policy. We stand behind them and that is what members will see in the House as we represent our positions.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his colleague has five minutes to reply. The hon. member for Wanuskewin has five minutes, if he wishes to use it, and I should advise the House that if he speaks now he will close the debate.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a fair bit of a thread of fallacy that has run throughout the speeches that have been made today. It is the fallacy that these cases would not be heard, that there is no way they would have their day in court if it were not for the Court Challenges Program.

I need to state for the record and for the Canadian public that is blatantly false. It is untrue. These cases have been, can be and will continue to be heard in the courts quite aside from court challenges funding. It is important for language rights and equality rights cases to be heard and they can in fact be heard without the Court Challenges Program.

There are other means by which, as they say, poor dispossessed groups that do not have the resources can achieve resource to take issues to the courts. There are wealthy individuals. There are foundations. There is legal aid as well, which is a very good suggestion because it is based on a means test. If those people have a valid case they can have it brought forward and paid for by the taxpayer in that manner.

What we have here is a major problem. The Court Challenges Program in my view is not committed to equality as clarified by judges but rather to their own predetermined understanding of equality. They already have this set idea of what is equality. Then they only allow in and shunt down the road those who meet the particular definition. As we said before legal aid is one means. There are others, as I have suggested, that could be explored as well.

The Court Challenges Program funds interest groups, not individuals. The hon member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar referred to Ailsa Warkinson, a lady out of Saskatoon, my home city, who had to link up with a group because she had not been corporally corrected and therefore was bringing her case forward on that basis. Rather it is an interest group. It is a group with a cause, with an agenda.

Also we mentioned before that there were groups. I read from one group that makes the point that “there are many court cases in which we did not intervene or initiate simply because we lacked the funds”. They did not have access to the Court Challenges Program because they did not meet the definition of equality of that biased group which sits on the Court Challenges Program board. These other groups are cut off, shut out and not allowed in. In every case we have been opposed by organizations which were funded by the Court Challenges Program.

Then there is the myth of disadvantaged groups without access that have been made much of today. There are groups that have wanted and needed the funding, that do not have the resources or do not have the reserves. They have been put at a decided disadvantage because time and time again they have been turned away and not allowed any access to the Court Challenges Program.

The charter recognizes certain disadvantaged groups. It is natural, the myth goes, that they should get funding to help them catch up to the rest of us. If that were the case, both sides of the argument need to be heard. Both sides need to be heard in court. That remains. We go to court presuming that one side is right. Therefore there is a necessity in a democratic system, in a proper judicial setting, for both sides to be heard.

As my colleague before me mentioned we have had this great beast of judicial activism beginning to rear its head in Canada, this judicial imperialism, the end run around democracy, usurping the supremacy of parliament. The Court Challenges Program is trying to re-engineer society and set the social policy agenda. It is doing an end run around the elected representatives of the people of Canada.

If groups with social causes want to push an agenda, if they want to push a cause célèbre, they should put a candidate forward at election time. They should get involved in the political process and push that agenda as hard as they want. That is their right. They should not attempt to do it by way of an end run around the courts, usurping the supremacy of parliament.

Obviously I object to the Court Challenges Program. I will attempt once again to seek unanimous consent of the House to have the foregoing motion before us deemed adopted and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent that the motion be deemed adopted and passed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no unanimous consent.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and this item is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, after rising in the House on March 16 to ask the government about the future plans for Devco I was attacked by the Minister of Natural Resources who, when asked by a fellow government member about the Liberal position on Devco, the Donkin mine and other issues of grave concern to the people of Cape Breton Island, resorted to the worst form of heckling and insult.

I was accused of not thinking of my constituents, but of trying to save the skin of the NDP. Regardless of what the hon. member thought my motives to be, it was clear that I had no need to worry about saving the skin of my party, as we are all aware of the stunning defeat suffered by the Liberal government on March 24 and of the NDP's rise to official opposition status.

Perhaps the minister and the House would also be interested to know that of the seats on Cape Breton Island that went NDP, the two with the biggest majorities are in the areas where coal mining has been the way of life for hundreds of years. Those are the people who stood on March 24 and rejected the party that has hurt them and their communities, which has refused to listen and to speak honestly.

I hope that this latest political rejection of the Liberal Party will be noted by this government and we can now start a new era in relations between this federal administration and the people of Cape Breton, an era where justified and factually supported questions are no longer dismissed as fear mongering, where questions are answered instead of questioners being attacked, and where the people of my island are treated as equals with those from any part of this great country.

I hope that this new era will begin. As the weeks pass I grow more and more concerned that the process of closing down the coal industry is continuing with increasing speed. Since I last spoke on this issue, the international coal piers have been closed, shutting Devco coal off from the export market for at least two years.

It is easy for the government to comment on Devco's inability to make a profit, but it should also be critical when the crown corporation is cutting itself off from valuable future markets. While more and more miners are being placed on indefinite layoff, the latest Devco revelation comes in a letter I received this week from the tripartite task force on fires and explosions in coal mines that expresses grave concerns over the shutdown of the coal research lab in Sydney earlier this year. The lab, which was urged to expand its activities in the report on the Westray disaster and whose necessity has been reinforced by the recent coal mine disasters across the former Soviet Union, was closed down despite objections from the industry and from the task force, which itself is a government funded body.

We have a government body questioning and condemning the actions of the government. More than that, in a copy of a letter from 1996 included with the pleas to restore funding to the research lab, the former chair of the task force talks of how he has been made aware of a government plan to shut down the lab if it cannot be privatized.

The orderly shutdown of Devco continues. The government continues to hide the truth. Why is this government helping Devco to shut down its future by destroying the corporation's ability to develop new markets and new technologies? I have asked this question so many times. I hope you will indulge me one more time, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the government will take advantage of the changed political landscape and start a new relationship based on open dialogue with the people of Cape Breton.

Will the government release its real plan for the future of Devco and come clean with Cape Bretoners?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her intervention.

This is not her first intervention on this particular issue of an allegation of a secret plan to shut down Devco. I am sure it will not be her last, for the simple reason that the hon. member has found considerable grief in being subjected to the worst form of heckling and insult by the Minister of Natural Resources in responding to the continuous litany of accusations that there is a privatization plan to terminate the operations of Devco. The minister has responded with what has been called the worst form of heckling and insult; that being, of course, the truth. But there is no such plan to terminate the operations of Devco. The hon. member may find that heckling and insulting, but that may be because the truth may sometimes foil a good story.

The story being perpetuated by the member is not very helpful to the operations of Devco, nor is it helpful to the management or to the orderly operations of this firm which is quite capably developing an economic opportunity for the people of Cape Breton.

I am concerned with the hon. member's continual insistence that this strategy exists. The secret cabinet document that was referred to has been found not to be a secret cabinet document at all. Frankly, it does not exist. The allegation, being quite false, is not very helpful to the workers of Devco. I plead once again for the hon. member to cease and desist and to work with us to explore the truth for a change and to continue in supporting this corporation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 81.

(The House adjourned at 6.19 p.m.)