Debates of April 23rd, 1998

Supply

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In that case the Deputy Prime Minister has a minute and a half left.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Please give me a firm signal when that point is reached.

By remaining silent in this way they show, for all their claims of support of free speech in this matter, that these claims do not amount to very much.

Why are members of the NDP not using their right to speak in the House about their Saskatchewan government which has not changed its position? Why do they not say what is wrong with this agreement?

The same applies to the Conservative Party in the House and its lack of criticism of its provincial allies.

Why is the Parti Quebecois saying nothing?

This lack of criticism shows the weakness of the position of the Reform Party and the other opposition parties in the House. It shows that there is no real merit in their position.

Members in the House should consider carefully their position on this serious matter. When they do so, I think they will agree with me that members of the House should vote to oppose and defeat this Reform Party motion.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister says that there has been no criticism levelled at the provincial governments. It is funny that a federal member of parliament, facing the federal government that has the primary responsibility for being the policemen of the blood system, would criticize someone else.

The federal government has $800 million in the compensation package compared to $300 million from the provinces. Let me make very clear that the federal government is the main culprit in this issue. It deserves the main criticism in this issue.

I have a quote from Krever and this says it plainer than I could concerning the federal bureau of biologic:

During the 1980s, the bureau did not decide independently whether to use its authority to require that measures be taken to reduce the risk of non-A, non-B hepatitis. Instead, it relied heavily on information given to it by the Red Cross—

The very organization it was supposed to regulate.

That is why the federal government is being so criticized for this foolish decision.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understood the provincial governments all during this period were partners with the federal government in the blood system. If the federal government is the only one to blame then why did the provincial governments join in the agreement? They joined in the agreement because obviously they felt they had some responsibility. The Reform member does not have the courage to get up in this place and point the finger when it should be pointed at provincial governments instead of just pointing it at the federal government.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect for the Deputy Prime Minister after following his career over the years. But as a new member in this House I am ashamed of what he is saying.

He knows damn well this is a federal agency that is responsible for the hep C victims and he also knows damn well there has been $7 billion cut from health care and that is why the provincial governments were coerced into this agreement. That is exactly why these governments have been sucked into this deal by the federal government.

It is the federal government that should be showing leadership on this, not the provinces.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have a federal system where provinces have their authority and the federal government has its authority. In some cases there is overlap and they have to co-operate.

Is he saying Premier Romanow is a wimp and could be coerced by the federal government? Is he saying that Premier Clark of B.C. is a wimp on this matter and can be coerced by the federal government? That shows the lack of credibility in his position. If they did not think they had some responsibility and that the agreement was right, those provincial allies of the hon. member would not have joined in. We know that to be a fact.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, something really struck me when the hon. Deputy Prime Minister began speaking.

He said he urged the members of this House to vote against the motion. I wonder if I can take that to mean that is all it is, urging his own members, or is he simply urging the opposition or are they applying caucus solidarity on this thing? It is an interesting word he used. Have they withdrawn from their position that this is a vote of confidence and they are enforcing party discipline?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking the hon. member in the eye and I am saying he is wrong and I urge him to vote against this motion. I say that to all members of the House but principally I am facing the opposition members because we have stated our position as a party. We believe in it and we stand by it.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to today's debate with great interest but one striking feature of the debate in the House today is that among those who have spoken in favour of this resolution, not one hon. member has confronted the true question at issue.

The true question is whether governments should make cash payments to those who are harmed through no fault of anyone but because of risk inherent in the medical system.

I intend in the few moments permitted me to deal with that question and to examine it. In doing so I urge all members to put aside the rhetoric, put aside the inflammatory words and the high sounding language of fairness and moral duty and instead confront the real question.

It seems the opposition parties have failed to confront that real question. They paper over that question because it is very tough. It is a very difficult question to answer. Ministers of health of this country came to grips with it some weeks ago and we concluded that we had a position on when governments should pay cash payments to those who are injured through no fault of anyone but because of risk inherent in the medical system.

The easy course, naturally, would be simply to pay those who are making a claim upon the government. Ministers of Health are custodians of Canada's health care system and we have a larger responsibility, a responsibility to show leadership on these tough questions and confront them directly, no matter how difficult they may be.

This issue is larger than just those infected with hepatitis C. Hon. members know that every year there are thousands of people in this country who are adversely affected by the health system through no one's fault but because there are risks inherent in it.

Last week researchers identified what they felt was a source of many deaths in hospitals every year because of adverse reactions to prescription drugs. This was brand new research and they said the figures in Canada are staggering.

We all know there are those who have adverse reactions to vaccines, anasthetics or to prescription drugs or who have high risk births delivering babies with brain damage who will need special care for a lifetime.

In the absence of fault, if it is a risk inherent in life or in delivering medical services, where is the obligation of governments to pay cash to those who are harmed in that way? That is at the root of this difficult issue. This is not the first time we have had to confront that issue.

In 1990 governments in Canada, because they were concerned by the rates of medical malpractice insurance by doctors and the number of claims for compensation, established a commission that was chaired by Dr. Robert Prichard who is now president of the University of Toronto. The Prichard commission was made up of distinguished Canadians, including the then dean of medicine at McGill University medical school, Dr. Richard Cruess, Madam Justice Ellen Picard of the Superior Court of Alberta who has written a definitive text on hospital and doctor liability, and Dr. Gregory Stoddart, one of the leading health policy analysts of this country. What did they conclude? They concluded in their recommendations the following:

We recommend the development of a no fault compensation scheme for persons suffering significant avoidable health care injuries.

We recommend that the general criterion for determining which significant medical injuries are compensable under the compensation scheme should be the test of avoidability. That is, the principal inquiry to determine if an event is compensable should be whether, with the benefit of hindsight, the injury could have been avoided by an alternative diagnostic or therapeutic procedure or by performing the procedure differently.

They specifically recommended that the same test be applied to those who are injured through the blood system. That is exactly what the ministers of health have done in this instance.

We looked back over the chronology of events and asked when was it, in all that happened, that these injuries were avoidable. So when is it that no fault compensation should be offered? History shows on the balance of the evidence that it was between January 1986 and 1990 that avoidable element occurred.

It is true to say there were tests here and there in different parts of the world and in different states earlier than that but broadly speaking, the evidence of those who know is it was by January 1986 that steps should have been taken. They were not. That is when the avoidable injuries occurred.

What should governments do about people before 1986?. What should we do about the victims who suffered the unavoidable injuries by virtue of risks inherent in the health system before January 1986? Among other things we should focus research on trying to find ways to treat and hopefully cure the infection. I have asked the chair of the Medical Research Council to take whatever necessary or appropriate to focus research priority on hepatitis C.

We must also do whatever we can to minimize risk in the future. We will be accepting the recommendations of Mr. Justice Krever in terms of the federal watchdog role, putting into place more elaborate controls over the safety of the blood system in the future. I will be coming back to this House with more particulars on the steps we are taking in that regard.

We must accept responsibility for that period when the injuries were avoidable. That is why we are contributing $800 million as a federal government to a compensation fund which will total $1.1 billion, more I hope if the Red Cross joins us, offered to those in the category who suffered injuries that were avoidable, 22,000 plus victims in that category. That was on the agenda because of federal leadership. It was only in the last year that the federal government put that agreement together among all the provinces.

It is easy today to suggest that we should simply write a cheque for all those who demand it. We are responsible for maintaining a public health care system in this country and it will not be sustainable if we simply pay cash to all those who suffer harm not through anybody's fault but because of risks inherent in the system. That is what happened here before January 1986.

When we hear the colourful language from the opposition parties today, when we hear them talk about our duty to the sick and the vulnerable, when we hear them talk about our moral duty, let us remember that as custodians of Canada's health care system we have no greater duty than to ensure that medicare is going to be there for those who are sick when they need it.

We have no greater moral responsibility than to safeguard medicare for the very hepatitis C victims who will require treatment as they develop symptoms and their condition deteriorates. We have no greater obligation of compassion than to ensure that our public health care system remains affordable and sustainable.

We shall not do it if we follow the course suggested by the other side because next month or next year there will be others who come forward with claims equally as compassionate, with demands equally as desirable, equally as emotional and they too will want money. Where will it end? It will end with governments paying out cash compensation regardless of fault to all who have an emotional claim and will end with a country unable to afford or sustain its health care system.

The moral high ground does not rest with those who urge that easy course. The true moral high ground is with those on this side of the House with the courage to stand and say we will take the tough decision on the difficult question we face. The true moral high ground rests with those in the government who will stand in their places next Tuesday and vote against this motion not because we are callous, not because we lack compassion, but because we are responsible for a public health care system that cannot and will not continue if we take the course the opposition urges.

I encourage all members of the House to consider the implications of this difficult and wrenching dilemma but to confront the real question that lies beneath it. Can we sustain our public health care system if we make cash payments to all those who are harmed by the health care system, regardless of fault, merely because of the risk inherent in the process?

Infection with hepatitis C through the blood system was just such an inherent risk before January 1986. As a result I say we should conduct research, we should do whatever we can to prevent such injury in the future, we should accept responsibility for the period when we should have acted, but I oppose this motion because it is not the proper policy.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the legal arguments from the health minister. I note publicly that the minister referred only to legal precedents on this issue.

I accept his point that government should not pay cash compensation to people who are injured when there is no fault. No fault, no compensation I accept. But in this instance can anybody convince me that there was no fault, can anybody convince Judge Krever, our premier expert on the blood system, that there was no fault? He said it plainer than I could ever say it. The federal government regulator failed the public.

All I will say is that Krever is our expert. The health minister has turned down his expertise. He says that the members in this House will not vote for this motion because it is the right thing to do. I say the Liberal members will not vote for this motion because they are being coerced and forced and pushed into the hole. Argue with that if they will but every single person in Canada knows that is true. If it is not true, take off the whip.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in view of what the hon. member has said, I urge him to withdraw his motion. If he limits the entitlement to cash compensation to those circumstances where government was at fault, then he ought to withdraw his motion. If he reads the Krever report he will see that the weight of the evidence had that it was January 1986 onward that Canada should have acted. Before January 1986 there was no fault on the part of government. The hon. member knows it.

That is why Mr. Justice Krever recommended no fault across the board. We do not accept that. But the hon. member has just conceded the point on this motion and he ought to withdraw the motion.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I support entirely what the member for Macleod said. The minister is attempting to use a legal argument to get rid of this so his responsibility will disappear. At the end of the day it falls at the doorstep of the Minister of Health. There is only one national Canadian Minister of Health and he is dodging the bullet. He prefers to put the blame on someone else. However, at the end of the day he is charged with the safety of the Canadian blood supply system. It is as simple as that. He cannot dodge that bullet.

I hope that members on the other side of the House will ignore the threat or the stick being held over them, or, as the member said, the whip that is being applied to them to bow in and vote with the government on Tuesday night. The minister is being surrounded by a ragtag assortment of supporters; just simply a handful. There are 150 empty seats over there and they do not support the minister on this issue.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

First of all, we do not refer to members who may or not be here, and when we do refer to each other we refer to each other through the Chair.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is striking about the intervention is that the hon. member will not deal with the tough underlying issue. He will not confront the question. I put it simply. When should governments pay compensation? Should they pay cash compensation to those who are harmed through the medical system not through anyone's fault, but because of the risks inherent in the medical system? The member will not answer that question.

He accuses me of having a legal analysis as if it is some sort of condemnation. The Prichard committee in 1980 was not a legal analysis. It was made up of health care experts who understood health policies. Their recommendation was to do exactly what ministers have done in this case, which is good public policy.

The member will not confront the question because he knows where it leads. It leads to the conclusion that this motion is ill-founded and inappropriate. The very person who moved it, the hon. member for Macleod, has conceded that it is without foundation. He has conceded that if there is no fault there should be no cash payment. The history of this matter shows that he has just cut the ground out from under his own motion.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise on this motion about which I and my party are deeply concerned and will be supporting on Tuesday night.

I wish to refer to what we have heard in this House today. We have heard that people with hepatitis C lead normal lives. We have heard that people with hepatitis C who will not be compensated can go the CPP disability route. We have heard unbelievable statements from the other side of the House today that the provincial governments should show leadership in changing the government's view on hepatitis C.

These statements are absolutely unbelievable, coming from so-called educated people on the other side whom we call Liberals. History will prove that this government is probably one of the cruelest, craziest and silliest governments of all time. History will prove me right on that.

It is just unbelievable that the Minister of Health can stand here and deflect like a stick-handler in hockey. Unfortunately he cannot score. He never has and he never will. The unfortunate part is that there are 40,000 people and their families who are infected by hepatitis C who will not be compensated. He stands there and says they have emotional claims. When people die, when people get sick, when people are injured by this disease he says they are basing their arguments on emotion only. He would not know a hepatitis C victim if that person lived in his basement. It is most unfortunate.

I have a few questions to ask the minister, if he ever cares to answer, in letter form, privately or whatever.

Does he agree with his parliamentary secretary that people who do not have hepatitis C compensation can go the CPP route? I know in my riding that hundreds of people try the CPP disability route and it takes years to get processed. In the the end, when the tribunal awards it to them, the Minister of Human Resources Development can turn around after 90 days and deny the claim.

My colleague from northern Saskatchewan was in this House and presented a compelling question to the Minister of Human Resources Development. It was about a young man of 26 years who had no legs and was missing an eye. He was denied CPP disability. If an individual of that nature can be denied CPP, how in the hell can they stand in this House and tell us that people who have hep C can go—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have no idea how he is going to know, but he is not going to know using that language.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I will refrain from using such strong language.

It is only because of my strong feelings on this particular issue. I feel that everybody with hep C in this country should be duly and fairly compensated. With that remark I will end my comments.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate today with considerable interest.

Obviously it is an issue that has gripped the country. People are quite aware of the issue now. They have followed it very closely and I think that Canadians are always compassionate.

When we look at the facts in this case we cannot help but support the position taken not only by the Reform Party but by all oppositions parties. I should pay tribute to members of all parties who have spoken today in the interests of standing up for Canadians. I say that of members of the opposition.

Let us go back through the chronology. In October 1993 the government appointed a commission. It appointed Justice Krever to look into the contamination of the blood system. We had an interim report in February 1995 and a final report in November of last year. In that report Justice Krever made the recommendation that all victims should be compensated.

We know, for instance, that AIDS/HIV victims going back to 1978 were compensated. They were all compensated. Justice Krever has made the judgment that all of the victims of hepatitis C should also be compensated.

I point out to the health minister that it is the justice who this government appointed who is making that recommendation. It is not another government, it is his judge who chaired the commission to bring forward these types of recommendations. We are simply pointing out that it is the government's own committee with its own expert review that has made these recommendations. We are simply asking them to listen to Justice Krever's advice and to do as he suggested.

It is not only in Canada that this advice has been followed. We have heard over the last couple of days how the Government of Ireland eventually had to yield to considerable public pressure because of the public's superior moral conscience which forced its government to pay compensation to all victims.

I would urge the government to listen to its own conscience and to finally come around to the point of view that it must start to compensate all victims.

The government has drawn an arbitrary line. It says January 1986 is the point at which it will start to pay compensation. As other members have pointed out, in other parts of the world testing was already under way, going back to 1981, which would have detected hepatitis C.

I point out in response to questions from the health minister that when a federal body takes on a responsibility to regulate something like the blood system, implied in that is responsibility and culpability. When the federal government steps in as a regulator the public has the right to assume that the government is taking all reasonable steps to ensure that it is doing its job, that it is getting the best possible information and that it is reaching out around the world to find out, in this case, whether or not there are tests available to determine whether there are things like hepatitis C lurking in blood. It did not do that and it should therefore be culpable. It is that straightforward.

The justice minister wants us to absolve the government of all blame. He is essentially justifying not paying compensation on the basis of the tardiness of the regulating agency to use other tests that were available around the world. The regulating agency was responsible for not utilizing all the available means to ensure that the blood system was safe. If it did not take those steps, then it is culpable. It is that straightforward.

I say in response to the health minister's speech of a few minutes ago that the regulating agency simply did not do its job. It simply did not use all available means at the time, which is why Justice Krever ruled that everybody should receive compensation.

The second point I want to go to is the idea of a free vote. I say to the health minister, the former justice minister, that if he is so convinced of his position, then allow this issue to go to a free vote. If he really believes that the federal government has no more responsibility previous to 1986 then let us ask him to put his position on the line with his own members. If he really believes in that, let us ask him to put his position on the line. Does he not trust his ability to make a persuasive argument to his own caucus? Let us let the people's representatives make that decision.

Today in the House we know that the leaders of the respective opposition parties got up and said “We do not view this as a vote of non-confidence. This is not a confidence motion”.

We also know the government has spoken in the past. It has written volumes about how it would allow more free votes. We view this issue as a moral issue. We say that this is an issue whereby the public should have the right to be represented by their representatives in the House of Commons. Let us have the government now finally put its money where its mouth is. Let us have it actually bring this motion to a free vote in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

We know there is a three line whip. People are being called back from all over the country. They are being told to be here, not to vote freely, but to vote against the motion, to vote against their own consciences, to vote against what their constituents are telling them.

No matter what theory of representation they believe in, they cannot possibly believe in one whereby the government says “it is my way or the highway” irrespective of what the public is telling them, irrespective of what their conscience tells them, especially when opposition party members have said they do not view this as a confidence motion.

I conclude my remarks by saying that if the government truly believes it is on the moral high ground here, then let us put this issue to members in a free vote. That is the true test. That is the real way to find out whether or not the government's arguments have carried the day. Because if those arguments are as persuasive as the health minister thinks they are, the government will have no problem carrying just a very few members on the government side that it will need to win the vote.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.

Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the questions on the motion are deemed to have been put and a recorded division is deemed to have been requested and deferred until Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at the conclusion of Government Orders.

Is it agreed that we call it 5:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Court Challenges Program

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

moved:

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

Mr. Speaker, the Court Challenges Program by way of background is an independent corporation based in Winnipeg that receives $2.75 million of public money every year. It distributes this money to interest groups so that those groups can then argue their views on the meaning of the charter of rights and freedoms in the courts.

In the 1994 contribution agreement between the program and the government, the overall objective of the program is very carefully stated. It says “the objective of the program is the clarification of constitutional rights and freedoms”. Note the word clarification.

The Court Challenges Program was not charged with the task of advocating specific interpretations of constitutional rights and freedoms. Its role in this process of clarification was to be a relatively minor one having to do with money. It was to provide interest groups with the money needed to present their charter interpretations in the court. Obviously, the judges are the ones who by their rulings must do the actual work of clarifying Canadians' rights and freedoms under the charter.

The problem with the Court Challenges Program is that it does not know its place. Its ambitions go well beyond its mandate. It is not content simply to handle the money side of things and let the courts decide the merits of various arguments. It has set itself up as judge and jury over the interest groups that apply for funding. For example it has been very welcoming to groups that promote gay rights, socialism and radical feminism. But interest groups that bring contrasting viewpoints to the courts, viewpoints which judges need to hear in order to render informed decisions are denied funding altogether.

The Court Challenges Program thus violates section 8.3 of its contribution agreement which says that the program shall fund a broad range of individuals and groups. The program has been anything but broad and inclusive.

This kind of blatant bias is made possible by the lack of adequate, unambiguous criteria for funding decisions. It often happens that when governments decide to fund interest groups, they are unable to answer the question: On what basis did you support one group and not another? In the absence of clear criteria, there is no other way for funding decisions to be made than in an ad hoc way which leaves too much to the discretion of the person who happens to be making the funding decisions.

In a 1992 study undertaken at the request of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, four researchers concluded that various strict procedures needed to be followed in the process of determining which groups would receive government funds. Among those procedures was a process for arriving at some fair criteria for funding decisions. It involved four stages.

The very first stage was that of writing a draft statement of criteria. The second stage was the distribution of that to all affected parties, stakeholders. The third stage was the unbiased consideration of comments on those proposed criteria from the affected parties. Last was the publication of the final criteria.

The authors write that at a minimum, what seems to be required is clearly articulated rules, which are applied equally to all with a stake in the activity and administrators who are obliged to adhere to those rules.

The Court Challenges Program is a notorious transgressor in this regard. Its criteria for making decisions are extremely vague and are therefore susceptible to manipulation by the Court Challenges Program's obviously biased decision makers. Most importantly, since the Court Challenges Program can only fund cases that deal with equality rights under sections 15 and 28 of the charter, the Court Challenges Program decision makers have taken it upon themselves to in effect define what that equality means when clearly that should be left to the judges.

How is it that the Court Challenges Program could be as biased as I am saying it is? The reason for such consistently biased funding decisions is clear. The members of the Court Challenges Program board of directors and also of its equality panel which makes the actual funding decisions are also members of those very same groups that wind up getting funded.

It is a very clear conflict of interest. The organization has no checks and no balances that would serve to guard it against partisan and biased decision making. Instead the government has written these groups a blank cheque by giving them control over the organization that disburses public money for charter cases.

Let us look at an example of an interest group that has been treated unfairly, in order to highlight the bias at the Court Challenges program. REAL Women of Canada is an organization whose approach to women's equality seeks to be sensitive to the needs of other members of society, including unborn children. On many issues, their view contrasts with that of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund or LEAF for short. Time and again, REAL Women has been denied funding by the Court Challenges Program while LEAF has been consistently handed out cheques.

There have been six court cases in which both groups participated on opposite sides of an issue. In all six of those court cases, LEAF's bills were paid by the Canadian taxpayer via the Court Challenges Program but REAL Women had to struggle to scrape together the necessary funds.

There is no logical reason for this inequality and discrimination against the group REAL Women. Regardless of what one thinks of the views of this group, it is clear that its positions on various issues are representative of the views of a large number of Canadian women. How large that number is is not my present concern, but it is clear that the Supreme Court has regarded this organization as worth hearing in court since it has consistently granted REAL Women intervenor status. Yet the Court Challenges Program whose equality panel is cut from a different ideological cloth than REAL Women has consistently refused to grant funding to REAL Women.

What is most shocking is the written response the Court Challenges Program gave to REAL Women after the group applied for intervenor funding in the Borowski case. Here is how REAL Women describe what happened in a letter written this year concerning a period in the mid-1980s: “In its refusal the Court Challenges Program stated that our view”—REAL Women's view—“of equality was not in accordance with the accepted and current understanding of equality both by society and the courts. This was back in 1987 when the courts had barely dealt with equality issues under section 15 of the charter which came into effect only in 1985”.

Only two years later and the response is that their view or understanding of equality does not fit the set understanding of equality in society and in the courts. Two years later. It is really quite a far stretch to imagine that it would already be that set at that point. “To add insult to injury, the Court Challenges Program enclosed an analysis or critique of our Borowski factum written by Rosalyn Curry, a member of LEAF, which was opposing us in the case”.

Imagine. The Court Challenges Program wanted an expert to examine REAL Women's application for funding and just happened to choose a lawyer who was a member of LEAF, REAL Women's arch rival.

The Court Challenges Program is clearly usurping the role of judges by deciding whether or not a group's legal arguments have merit. They have appointed themselves the justice system's gatekeepers on charter cases of crucial significance.

There is other disputable evidence of bias at the Court Challenges Program. Quite tellingly when the courts have not ruled in favour of one of the Court Challenges Program's favourite groups, the program's literature subsequently portrays that decision as a great setback for justice and equality. That makes it clear that the Court Challenges Program is not interested in letting judges clarify the rights and freedoms we have under the charter, which is their mandate, their reason for existence. Rather the organization is itself an advocacy group whose true objective is to help its friends in the left wing advocacy business.

That was even acknowledged publicly by one of the funded groups EGALE, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere. In their newspaper Capital Extra , they told their readers as recently as November 14, 1997 “federal funding for the Court Challenges Program means that you have an advocate”. It does not get much clearer than that, straight from the mouth of the gay lobby.

I would like to raise a question which I find interesting concerning how the Court Challenges Program might fare if it were ever itself subjected to a court challenge. I enjoy thinking about this. A 1994 supreme court case dealt with the very issue of selective funding of interest groups. It throws some interesting light on the Court Challenges Program.

The Native Women's Association of Canada argued that the government had unfairly denied it funding and a seat at the table in the so-called Canada round of constitutional consultations that led up to the Charlottetown accord. Four native groups did receive direct funding and a seat at the table but NWAC was not one of them. The group argued that its freedom of expression had been violated as well as its equality rights under the charter.

There were some interesting ideas in terms of the judges' reasons for their decisions. Some interesting ideas emerge which are helpful to us in our consideration of the motion before us today.

The court ruled that a government is free to choose its advisers as long as it does not base its choices on discriminatory grounds. Writing for the majority, Justice Sopinka said that the government must be free to consult or not consult whomever it pleases. There is nothing illegal about a government funding some groups and listening carefully to them while totally ignoring others. So far so good.

Let us be careful to realize that Judge Sopinka's words about the acceptability of bias toward different interest groups applies to governments but not to the judiciary. It would be completely unacceptable for judges to want to hear only one side of an argument and to completely ignore and not even hear arguments from the other side. If they did so the public would lose confidence in the courts pretty quickly.

That is why the Court Challenges Program is such an absurd, offensive and unjust program. It may sometimes be acceptable for the government to listen to arguments on only one side of an issue but the government cannot and should not spend money in the hope that the judiciary will be subjected to one-sided argumentation.

The government can choose its own advisers but it must not choose the judiciary's advisers. However that is the effect of the Court Challenges Program. By funding this biased organization, the government is meddling in the affairs of the judiciary. It is attempting to determine which interest groups will be able to press their case in the courts.

There is another thing which we learn from this supreme court case. The court ruled that the government's decision to fund the four aboriginal groups but not NWAC, it was not based on discriminatory grounds. The decision was based on a procedural preference and not a gender preference. The NWAC argued that the four groups were pushing a male dominated view of aboriginal self-government but the evidence did not support this. It showed that the four funded groups adequately represented both men and women in native communities and that there were no barriers to NWAC's working within those four groups and thus having a voice.

Not only were these groups open to working with NWAC but two of them gave $260,000 of their government funding to NWAC precisely to assist the group in presenting its views. It is instructive that the courts clearly assumed that NWAC's equality rights would have been violated had the evidence shown that those four groups were biased against women and did not represent the views of native women.

It is clear from Judge Sopinka's ruling that the decision would have been different had the evidence shown that the four groups hand picked by the government to represent native Canadians were hindering NWAC's participation in the aboriginal consultation. If we apply Justice Sopinka's reasoning to the Court Challenges Program, the program comes up short.

First, the positions advanced by the Court Challenges Program are not, and I underline are not, representative of the views of the interest groups that have been denied funding. Second, all the evidence shows that the Court Challenges Program is indeed biased against the views of many of the non-funded groups. They do not give out dollars to those groups with whom they differ. Third, unlike the four aboriginal groups that opened their doors to make room for the NWAC to participate in the constitutional process, the Court Challenges Program has no interest in working with groups it regards as ideologically suspect. Fourth, unlike the four aboriginal groups which redirected $260,000 of their funding to the NWAC, the Court Challenges Program has not directed any money to groups whose views it does not share.

For all these reasons I brought this initiative forward. Let me read it into the record again:

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

I seek unanimous consent of the House to have the motion before us deemed adopted and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question of whether there will be unanimous consent for adoption and passage of the motion is not up for decision since the motion is not votable. Is the hon. member asking that the matter be made votable?

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Adopted and passed.