Debates of April 30th, 2007

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I wish the hon. member would sit down when I stand up. That is the way the rules work around here. We have more than one question that needs to be asked.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will address with the member the whole issue of how people living with disabilities would be able to access their rightful place in terms of laws that might discriminate against them without the court challenge program.

I want to somehow get away from this heated rhetoric in the House right now because there is so much at stake with the loss of the court challenges program that it might get lost. We have an opportunity to get through to the government today about the importance of court challenges when it comes to a whole variety of people who are treated, in many ways, as second class citizens.

We have heard about women's equality. We have heard about visible minorities, but I do not think we have spent very much time talking about people with disabilities.

The member may know that not too long ago Mary Rollason-MacAulay, a young woman with a very serious disability, came with her father, Kevin Rollason, from Winnipeg, to talk to the government. Without the benefit of the court challenges program, they would never have been able to demonstrate that in fact the employment insurance program was discriminating against people with disabilities. Their efforts through the court challenges program broke down barriers and opened up all kinds of opportunities for people living with disabilities.

Could the member from Kitchener to talk about what is available to people to challenge our laws that might discriminate today on the basis of ability or disability? What opportunities exist without the court challenges program to accomplish exactly the same thing, and is this not reason enough to persuade the government to put back such an important program?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the disabled it is important that we do not look upon them as a special interest group, which is what the government is doing by eliminating the court challenges program.

The rhetoric gets heated when the government attacks the fundamental premise of justice in this country by eliminating people's rights. It is the minority groups that need the programs because they tend to not have the money to undertake these challenges.

On the whole issue of disability, it is clear that we have a duty to accommodate people so they can be judged on their abilities not on their disabilities. To the extent that they can live as much of a normal life as possible, it is incredibly important that they have those rights.

Without the court challenges program, I think people rely on the human rights programs that might exist in the provinces but that does not substitute for something as important as the court challenges program which, ultimately, gets results before the Supreme Court.

I have a great deal of trouble with the government's position on this whole notion of interpreting rights and making those decisions because those things are covered in section 52 of the Constitution. As I listened to the Conservative members talk about Parliament and the government should decide on rights, that is totally wrong because governments make mistake. We have all sorts of examples in history where governments have made mistakes.

It is important to recognize that the interpretation of the Constitution, according to the Constitution, rests with the courts. For the average individual to access justice, it should depend on the merit of one's case and not on the size of one's pocketbook. People who are rich, like Conrad Black, can take care of themselves, but the people who are fighting for basic disability rights cannot care for themselves and that is why the court challenges program is so critical.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, all too often when we engage in debate in this House some members refer to the broad national numbers and the departmental impacts from coast to coast. However, I think it is important that we share with the people at home following the debate just how this plays out on individual Canadians. The member's story about Joe Taylor and how the cancellation of this program had an impact on his life and the peril that it placed him in was important to bring to the debate.

What I am also taken by is how the government is not in any way able to justify the cancellation of this program.

A couple of interventions have been made by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills with no substantive reason, trying to reach back and say that this was what the Liberals did. In his last question he tried to identify representation that the front bench would have had. Prior to that, he talked about cuts that had been made in the mid-1990s and tried to equate them to these cuts and the cut to this program, which is a completely different set of circumstance. The government in the mid-1990s was certainly in a deficit situation and it was trying to right the books, but here we are faced with a government that has a surplus situation with no obvious reason to cut this program. It was not because of funding.

So, I would like my colleague--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. We will need to give the hon. member for Kitchener--Waterloo a few seconds to respond.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, we are involved in an ideological debate.

The government does not believe that people who are fighting for their rights, those the government considers to be special interest groups, such as the poor, the disabled, women, people fighting for citizenship rights and the list goes on, should be listened to because the government is all-knowing and it can make the decision.

The fact is that if we are going to have justice in this country, we need the protection of the Constitution and of the charter. Again, one's right to--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Churchill.

We are debating a committee report dealing with the court challenges program. I have always, as a member, supported the court challenges program from a distance, in the sense that the program was operated and administered well outside of Parliament, well away from the government and managed by people who had legal expertise and a good perspective on our Canadian laws and institutions.

It was not an expensive program. It was actually quite cost effective. It was a program that looked toward the effective functioning of our laws and our administration.

Set out in our Constitution and in our Charter of Rights are legal rights, equality rights and language rights. However, I should make a quick distinction here. Not all the rights we are talking about here are charter rights. Bundles of rights are contained in our original Constitution and the charter, which was enacted in 1982, 25 years ago, reflected some of those and enhanced others.

However, the point is that the court challenges program was meant to be out there to allow the little guy in Canada, the person who maybe did not have the full clout of having a lawyer on the other end of the phone, to join with others and challenge the current law or administration in Canada for the purpose of complying with those very noble objectives of our charter and our Constitution.

I for one did not get a chance to see the court challenges program work up close and most Canadians did not get a chance. The probable reason is that most Canadians take the general quality of our laws and administration for granted. They tend to focus from time to time on perhaps what they do not like rather than all the stuff that is out there that is working quite functionally and serving us well. In the case of the court challenges program, it was actually doing a pretty good job.

Some people might not like the decisions that the courts eventually came to on cases that were brought by the court challenges program but that is a completely different issue than whether or not the court challenges program was working effectively, and it was. It took care of a lot of people. It was a fine-tuning device that was out there that, from time to time, would challenge the big guys in government, the decision makers in government who refused to budge when they were challenged on fairness in the law. By fairness, I mean fairness connected to the equality rights, the language rights and the legal rights that are in our Constitution.

I will point to two cases that have come to me as a parliamentarian but I will not mention any personal names. I am of the view that the two particular cases will require a court challenge. I am not suggesting that they should have been part of the court challenges program but it is a fact that not every component of our government is functioning perfectly and in compliance with the law.

No matter where we look, we will find flaws. We are all human and our government administration is run and operated by humans. People dig their heels in and some people make mistakes. We probably make mistakes in and around the House here too but I cannot point to any right now.

In any event, there was the case of one individual who had not obtained his Canadian citizenship after having lived in Canada for several years. He heard his mother was very ill so he rushed back to his home country. His mother recovered within three or four weeks. This person had left Canada without all the documents. He left fairly quickly because he was told that his mother was on her deathbed. He then had to go to the embassy and get papers to return to Canada. Lo and behold, the embassy decided that he could not get a visa to come back because he was inadmissible. This person was a permanent resident of Canada who went back home to check on his mother and the embassy decided he was inadmissible.

Granted there was a basis for the alleged inadmissibility but our laws also contain provisions that enable him to be treated as a permanent resident abroad and he was not. I am looking at this and I know that the administration of that particular section of the immigration law is ultra vires. It is wrong. It should be challenged and that may happen.

In another case, we have a collaboration between the Canada Revenue Agency and Canada Post to circumvent a privacy law enacted by Parliament. Parliament has decided that personal mail under 30 grams in weight may not be opened for inspection. The CRA generally has the ability to inspect mail coming into Canada but it does not have the right to open and inspect mail that is under 30 grams.

What does the agency do when it has one of these little envelopes? Canada Post and the CRA will keep it. They then send a letter to the Canadian telling the person that they do not have the right to open his or her mail because it is under 30 grams but that they would like the person's consent. They then tell the person that if he or she does not give consent, they will send it back to the sender outside the country and mark the letter as undeliverable.

That is a lie. Of course it is deliverable because Canada Post and the CRA were able to send a letter asking for consent in the first place. Under the Canada Post Corporation Act that mail is in the course of post and Canada Post has a legal obligation to see that it is delivered. Just because CRA cannot open it and inspect it does not mean it cannot be delivered.

In any event, CRA could open and inspect that letter if it went to court and got a warrant. However, the procedure that CRA is using is illegal. It circumvents what Parliament has laid down for our personal privacy when it comes to mail.

One of these instances occurred under the Liberal government and the second occurred under the Conservatives. It is not the government itself that I am challenging here. It is the administration that I am challenging. I am saying that in both of these instances, the immigration department, the CRA and Canada Post are seriously off side in terms of the enforcement and the administration of the law.

I hope these incidents will be challenged. The court challenges program was a wonderful, effective and efficient institution. I regret that it is not currently being funded by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the downfalls of cancelling the court challenges program, as was stated already, is that a lot of people, individuals and minority groups may not have the resources to take a particular situation and challenge it.

As the member knows very well, the Acadian groups of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have successfully used the court challenges program to fight for schools in their language in P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. The government knows full well that those respective provinces challenged those groups in the Supreme Court.

When it is a small group of parents that wants to educate their children in the French language and going against the weight of a provincial government, how is it anticipated that these individuals or groups can challenge a government on something that they perceive is wrong? That is why the court challenges program, in this particular instance, was so important.

I would appreciate it if the hon. member would talk a bit more and elaborate on people, especially outside of Quebec, who are struggling to maintain their French language and their heritage when it comes to challenges through the court challenges program with respect to the provinces.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has quite properly articulated the circumstance that exists from time to time and place to place across the country where ordinary Canadians have a gut feeling that something is just not right or fair in the administration of the law. They question the administration of the law. They believe they have been short-changed in their rights in some way. They feel they are not getting fair treatment in some way.

Their problem is that they face big government in trying to get redress. They only have the ability to speak to the people who have already turned them down or do not believe that they are being fairly treated. They have very few other places where they can turn.

It is a fact, some people do not like it, that there is a class of profession called lawyers, many of whom have the skills necessary to bring that challenge forward, to articulate it in a way and describe it and bring it forward procedurally to bring about a good result. That is what the court challenges program enabled many Canadians to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to put this all into perspective. The court challenges program was first introduced in 1978 and it was during a period of pretty intense debate over language rights and their impact on national unity.

We had the Official Languages Act of 1969. We had Quebec's Charte de la langue française in 1977. We had a number of court cases. So all of this contributed to putting this issue on the front burner. As a result, the government set up the program. With the advent of the charter in 1982, it expanded it to include section 15 rights.

However, today things are different. The two differences today are, first, there is a large, substantial body of case law that has been established from the last three decades; and second, there are less costly ways to fund court challenges and the Department of Justice can do so on a case by case basis.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, funding more efficient court challenges is all right, provided there is a program that is out there and is accessible to the little guy.

The member says our laws are in pretty good shape after all of these years. One of the reasons they are in good shape is that these types of challenges have occurred. They have helped to fine tune our laws to the extent that Canada internationally is seen as a country that has a pretty good set of equality and rights legislation.

If the member feels strongly about what he has just said, perhaps he could put on record just what is this other government program that will allow the little guy to challenge the administration based on constitutional right?

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak to this motion today.

I have been a member of the heritage committee for the last year. As parliamentarians we have had the privilege of hearing from people who support the re-implementation of the court challenges program and who are adamantly against its elimination. We also heard from people who were against the court challenges program. It was a very interesting process.

I would like to speak about the program and about some of the stuff that we heard at committee. It is absolutely critical for Canadians to know that we have heard from witnesses. We heard from people who felt that the court challenges program represented the spirit and the law of this country at its best. They told us about the incredible impact it had on their lives.

We heard from witnesses who talked about the fact that their lives changed dramatically through an injury or an incident of some type. They had different needs and all of a sudden found themselves at a disadvantage. Their rights under the charter were not being met. We also heard from officials of the court challenges program itself.

We heard from many members who have spoken today, from the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc, and about the concept of justice. The concept of justice necessarily includes access to justice. This is what the court challenges program was about.

At its conception, the court challenges program was related to official language rights under the charter and Constitution, and equality rights guaranteed under the charter involving federal laws, policies and practices. It was meant to provide access to justice for Canada's historically disadvantaged and those most vulnerable to marginalization and exclusion from full participation in Canadian society.

Canada's official minority language groups were also trying to claim their full and proper place in Canada. Without this access to justice, these disempowered groups and individuals no longer have a voice in their efforts to seek equality and recognition.

I would also like to mention that Canada had an international reputation. The court challenges program was one of the instruments for which Canada was recognized by the former UN high commissioner for human rights. She commented on the wonderful work of the court challenges program and its uniqueness. That program and our commitment to human rights have given Canada a place on the world stage.

This program cost $5.6 million a year. That is not a very substantial amount of money. We heard many criticisms by the people who were against the court challenges program and they often echoed some of the Conservative sentiments. We heard today that Liberal friends were recipients of the money, that they were the lawyers.

In fact, we had the opportunity at committee to question people, to question individuals or organizations that utilized the court challenges program about whether they even knew the party affiliation of their lawyer. This is not a partisan issue. It really is about Canada. It is about the spirit and it is what makes Canada great.

The other accusation that we heard today was that the program was not worth the money, not worth its value. In fact, the then President of the Treasury Board, when he made the cut to the program, did in fact say that these initiatives, including the court challenges program, were not meeting the priorities of Canadians or providing value for money. That is indeed what the President of the Treasury Board said about the program, but in 2003 the court challenges program was reviewed and the review was very positive.

The evaluation period was from 1998 to 2003. The evaluators noted that the court challenges program was consistent with the objectives of the Department of Canadian Heritage and most of the individuals and groups consulted stressed that the CCP provided for the clarification of equality and language rights, and afforded greater access to the justice system.

I would also like to mention that, as was found in the evaluation of the CCP and as we have heard from Conservative members and others, it is not value for money because it does not represent, as the minister said, the priorities of Canadians.

What we heard often was that people felt this represented special interest groups. Interestingly enough, the people who often made the accusations were not from a historically disadvantaged group and there were accusations that the court challenges program simply represented special interest groups.

I must argue that we have heard on this side of the House from over 170 organizations from across Canada. Together they submitted a letter asking for a reinstatement of the court challenges program. There are 170 groups, including: Alberta Association for Community Living, Brain Injury Association Network, Canadian Council of Muslim Women, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, Canadian Health Coalition, Canadian Women's Health Network, and the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues. I could go on and on because there are 170 groups listed.

What I am saying essentially, as we heard at committee time and time again, is that the court challenges program was indeed a program that represented the values of Canadians.

I want to finish by saying that on this issue of special interest groups, we did hear the member for Winnipeg North mention Kevin Rollason, who presented his daughter Mary's story. One of the things he said is that his life did change with the birth of his daughter. He said, “Little did I know my decision would spark a constitutional battle against the federal government and its employment insurance laws”.

He talked about the change in his life from being a Canadian who felt that he had equality to somebody who was disadvantaged and needed to fight on behalf of his family and the court challenges program allowed him to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think once again we have to remember the roots of this program, why it was originally established in 1978. It was to clarify certain constitutional provisions related to equality and language rights, language rights as set out in statutes, language and equality rights as set in section 15 of the charter, and in other areas of law.

That is why the program was originally established. It came at a time when we had the advent of the 1969 Official Languages Act, we had the 1977 Quebec Charte de la langue française and the 1982 charter, and so there was a need to establish a substantial basis of case law to determine rights.

Three decades later we have that substantial base in case law and the need for the program is no longer there. Furthermore, the Department of Justice could pursue cases on a case by case basis as needed, so there are more effective ways to spend money to affect rights and to affect case law.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree vehemently with the member opposite.

I am a first nations individual. This is outside the court challenges program and this type of case law, but currently there is a human rights complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Commission that has been filed by the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada on the issue of first nations child welfare. I disagree with the basic premise of his statement that this is not timely any more and that these rights have been established in Canada.

I also draw his attention to the fact that there is a provision in the charter which states:

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

I draw his attention to the Corbiere case in 1999, which was not that long ago. It was a court challenge and dealt with the portability of treaty rights.

I disagree with the premise of the member opposite that rights have been filtered through and ascertained and everything is equal for all Canadians.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague sits on the heritage committee, which I sit on as well. I participated in the hearings on the court challenges program. I must say that as the hearings went on, I saw members on the government side beginning to feel more and more uncomfortable with the position that they were forced to defend. As a matter of fact, I almost felt bad for them because they were grasping for arguments that would be refuted by witnesses or other members until they really had no leg to stand on.

The reason they have no leg to stand on is that this is not a rational, well-founded policy decision. This is a decision that was made on the basis of emotion. It is a decision that was made by a Prime Minister and a president of the Treasury Board at the time, who is today the Minister of the Environment, who had been burned by this program in the past.

When the Prime Minister was the president of the National Citizens Coalition he was burned when he took the electoral financing act to the courts. He was burned by the anti-poverty league as well. The Minister of the Environment, who was a Harris Tory at one point, tried to shut down a French speaking hospital in Ottawa. That is why they made that decision. It is not based on sound policy. It is based on emotion and vendetta, and they should be ashamed.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that it appeared there was discomfort as the hearings continued, not so much when we were dealing with the organizations, which the government has already cut, such as the law commission and women's legal organizations, but as we heard from individuals whose very lives had been affected and who had as individuals utilized the court challenges program.

I agree with the member as well that there is an ideological basis for this cut. In fact, we heard it at committee. There were references which I found particularly startling. We heard accusations of feminist and homosexual court challenges and not representing Canadians and similar rants. It made it particularly uncomfortable.

I agree, as my Liberal colleague said, there was a court challenge by the current Prime Minister in the past and that there may be a particular personal agenda.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to participate in this debate today. As a matter of fact, we moved a motion in the Standing Committee on Status of Women that was reported here last week by the chair, and which also called for the court challenges program to be restored. We had several reasons for doing so.

This afternoon, I would like to dedicate my speech to a new Conservative candidate from the Drummondville area, Mr. Komlosy, to show him the importance of being familiar with the cuts his party has made, and also the importance of the consultations we do to understand the needs of the public. I dedicate this speech to him.

We know that the court challenges program, as our Conservative colleague said, dates back to 1978. It has made a remarkable contribution to the development of constitutional law and to the rights of Canadians and Quebeckers over the last 28 years, but more work remains to be done. This program is fully accountable to the Government of Canada. It provides quarterly reports on its activities to the government and publishes an annual report with statistics on the number and types of cases that it has funded. The annual reports are public documents and are available on the court challenges program’s website. This is not some small, ad hoc program. The program was very well laid out and respected.

The court challenges program was subject to full and independent evaluations of its activities every five years. Since 1994, the program has been evaluated three times. On each occasion the evaluators found that the court challenges program was meeting the objectives set by the government in a cost-effective manner, and made unqualified recommendations that the court challenges program should continue to carry out its mandate.

This program was very important to the Fédération des femmes du Québec because it was crucial to financing precedent-setting legal action brought by groups and individuals to dispute federal policies and legislation that violated their constitutional right to equality. With the support of the court challenges program, women's organizations and other groups fighting for equality were able to access the legal system and introduce progressive interpretations of the legislation. Thanks to this program, women, gays and lesbians, people with physical disabilities and other disadvantaged groups now enjoy greater equality.

This is not the first time a Conservative government has abolished the court challenges program. The first time was in 1992. The public protested so vociferously that the government was forced to back down. During the 1993 elections, all of the federal parties said that if they were elected, they would reinstate the court challenges program for good, which is what the Liberal Party did in 1994.

When they take action without knowing the root causes of a problem, ignorance is a plausible excuse, but when they take action knowing full well the consequences of cutting a program like this one, they have to be acting in very bad faith if they would have us believe that their cuts have no impact on people's rights, on the rights of women and the disabled. They have to be acting in very bad faith.

The court challenges program subsidized the women's legal education and action fund in a case that challenged the use of sexist myths in rape trials. LEAF took the Ewanchuk case—in which the accused alleged that the way a woman dressed for a job interview could indicate her willingness to have sex with a potential employer—to the Supreme Court of Canada. Fortunately, the Supreme Court agreed with LEAF's arguments and rejected the defendant's sexist arguments.

The United Nations has repeatedly recognized the vital role that the court challenges program played in the respect and promotion of human rights in Canada. In January 2003, the CEDAW committee acknowledged the importance of the CCP in the struggle to end all forms of discrimination against women. Furthermore, in May 2006, the U.N. Committee for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recommended that the court challenges program be expanded, not eliminated, to fund test case litigation against provincial laws and policies that violate constitutional equality rights.

I have here an article written by Mr. Batiste Foisy on November 2, 2006:

Cancelled in September by the Conservative government in its efforts to “cut the fat” and “eliminate wasteful programs”, the court challenges program (CCP) was, for many minority groups, the ultimate tool to ensure the respect of their constitutional rights. It was a Heritage Canada agency that provided funding to individuals and organizations challenging the constitutionality of legislation before the courts or taking action against a government for failing to meet its constitutional obligations. Most cases supported by the CCP dealt with the rights of linguistic minorities, equality of women, or the rights of minorities such as homosexuals, aboriginals or immigrants. The court challenges programs cost the Canadian government 18 cents per person per year.

It cost only 18 cents a year for each Canadian and Quebecker. Eighteen cents. They eliminated a program that worked, that was internationally recognized as a program that helped people maintain and assert their rights, for only 18 cents per person per year.

Naturally some organizations were pleased. You will not be surprised to hear that Real Women of Canada was one of the organizations that said that the program had financed only left-wing organizations which, with taxpayers' money, led to social restructuring through the courts and that eliminating the program promotes the advancement of democracy in Canada. We should remember that Real Women of Canada is a group of women opposed to same-sex marriage, abortion and divorce.

Mr. Roger Lepage has defended and won a number of cases—particularly with regard to access to French-language education in western Canada—with the help of the court challenges program. My father and his family moved to western Canada in 1920, when he was two years old. On Sundays, his mother was forced to hide and to take the children to the barn to teach them their first language so they would not forget it. That was in Dollard, Saskatchewan. She ran the risk of being arrested if discovered.

Progress has been made since then. We have obtained the right, even in the western provinces, to speak French and to be educated in French. Why? How? Thanks to the court challenges program which has served many causes. Members may recall the story of Montfort Hospital, which was almost forced to close its doors even though it was the only French-language hospital in the region. The people wanted to keep and protect it. They were very afraid of losing their hospital because then they would not have had access to services in their mother tongue. This program was very effective and served many good and noble causes.

Mr. Roger Lepage said that a minority is not in a position to exercise democratic power because it does not have demographic weight. We must remember this: a minority does not have demographic weight. Since they cannot count on parliamentarians, who speak on behalf of the majority, minorities must turn to the judiciary when their rights are violated. It is clear that the rights of a minority are not very popular with the majority. By cutting the funding available to minorities, the Conservative Party is attempting to return to a primitive democracy where the strict majority dominates.

He has experienced this primitive democracy. Like so many other Franco-Saskatchewaners of his generation, he knew a time when he had to hide his books on the way to school because French education was prohibited.

The Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française intends to take legal action against the government to overturn this decision. In a letter addressed to the Prime Minister on October 4, 2006, the coalition called on the government to overturn its decision. Lawyers Nathalie DesRosiers and Wayne McKay wrote the following on behalf of the coalition:

Canadian law is not perfect. Those who criticize the imperfections in order to live in equality with others deserve to be heard. By cancelling the court challenges program, your government has indicated that those people will not be heard and do not deserve to be.

The Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, known as FAFIA, believes that eliminating the program will slow down the promotion of Canadians and Quebeckers and be a setback for real equality. The co-chair of FAFIA, Shelagh Day said:

This program has provided Canadian women with their only access to the use of their constitutional equality rights.

That word, equality, has been dropped from the Conservative Party's vocabulary. Ms. Day continues:

Equal rights have no meaning in Canada if women, and other Canadians who face discrimination, cannot use them.

It is all well and good for the government to say that this was a good decision, that it was trimming fat, but it was actually trimming right to the bone. When the government wants to trim fat, it will cut things like military aircraft that cost billions of dollars but do not provide our soldiers with the necessary support. When the government wants to trim fat, it will cut things that will make a huge difference in people's lives.

Bonnie Morton of the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues said, “The cancellation of the court challenges program is an attack on the charter itself and the human rights of everyone in Canada”. I would add, “and everyone in Quebec”. The organizations affected are not little groups out in the backwoods somewhere. They are organizations across Canada and Quebec, serious organizations with a solid track record, credible organizations.

Yvonne Peters of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities also said:

When a country like Canada enacts constitutional rights, it takes for granted that residents, when they believe the government is violating their rights, can and will challenge any offending law or policy. If residents cannot ensure respect of their rights because of financial barriers, Canada’s constitutional democracy is hollow. We turn the Charter into a paper guarantee, with no real meaning.

Without the Court Challenges Program, Canada’s constitutional rights are real only for the wealthy. This offends basic fairness. And it does not comply with the rule of law, which is a fundamental principle of our Constitution.

Avvy Go of the Metro Toronto Chinese and South Asian Legal Clinic said:

Stephen Harper recognized this during the last election campaign, and he said then that if elected a Conservative government would “articulate Canada’s core values on the world stage”, including “the rule of law”, “human rights” and “compassion for the less fortunate”. The cancellation of the court challenges program belies this promise.

The Bloc Québécois has always supported causes that affect minorities, women, children and seniors. This cause affects them directly. When we can no longer defend our rights, when we no longer have access to a process that enables us to assert our rights, we become even poorer. There is enough poverty here, there is enough in Canada and there is enough in Quebec.

Poverty exists and we must fight it with any available means. The impoverishment of human rights is an even more important issue. It makes me even angrier because it leaves individuals without any resources and without any support; then they give up. Does this government want its citizens to be so subjugated that they no longer have the desire to live, to fight, to stand up for themselves? That seems to be the case. I am sorry to have to say it but that does seem to be the case. It could be said that this government wants to ensure that individuals will no longer have the ability to defend themselves.

The Bloc Québécois will not accept this. We will go on. That is why Mr. Komlosy can rest assured that, in Drummondville, we will continue to consult the public, to meet with the people, to meet with women, groups and individuals interested in the problems caused by the Conservative government cuts. I can rhyme off all these cuts, but I will focus on the slashing of the court challenges program.

In conclusion, I will refer to the Conservatives' argument that they thought it was useless to have a program that challenges the merits of federal legislation when the government makes good laws. But everyone can make mistakes. We may well be legislators, we may well want to make correct, fair and equitable legislation, but sometimes we make mistakes. A law is one of our tools, and we must re-examine it from time to time to ensure that it still reflects reality and to ensure that we still have reason to want to use it. There are times when a law is no longer valid. It has lost its relevance because it no longer meets the needs of the people, the public. There are times when it is unjust to certain parts of the population or certain segments of the population.

By abolishing the court challenges program, the Conservative government also wanted to silence the opposition voices. The Bloc Québécois knows something about civil opposition.

At the same time, the eligibility criteria for the women's program were changed so as to exclude rights and lobby groups. Mr. Komlosy, if you are listening, this is about women's rights. Women's rights groups and women's lobby groups no longer have access to the women's program. I want this to be clear. It is on the record and it must be the truth.

Once again, by cutting this program, by making cuts to other programs, the government is trying to silence the voices of women, the disabled and minorities. This is what the Bloc Québécois will continue to condemn.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech on the court challenges program, which has been so essential to linguistic minority groups.

She used Saskatchewan as an example. Her family lived in a community where there was no opportunity to receive an education or training in French, the family's mother tongue.

My grandfather was elected for the first time in 1907, in Nova Scotia. It was against the law in Nova Scotia to teach Acadians in their mother tongue. Thus, he had to appoint a inspector of francophone schools who would turn a blind eye when French-language textbooks were used. French-language textbooks did exist. One hundred years later, after the year 2000, there were still court challenges before the Supreme Court of Canada. Those cases were funded by the court challenges program, thereby giving us francophone schools and allowing us to run our schools.

The Conservatives say they support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They say they want to ensure that federal programs are beyond dispute. However, they seem to ignore the fact that we must also live with provincial programs and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all those programs. I think it is fair to say that they want to destroy the charter by destroying resources.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have a very hard time with that. As you know, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is, once again, far superior to Canada's. What can I say? We do things right in Quebec.

The other provinces have serious problems. I think my colleague mentioned one of them. That is why the court challenges program must be reinstated. Thousands of people, thousands of women and thousands of organizations are waiting for us to do this because in some situations, this is a matter of life and death, a matter of survival.

I know of organizations that have had to close their doors because they could no longer keep them open. That is terrible. By silencing society's neediest, we are silencing a huge number of people who have much to gain by exploring their potential in the public arena and by telling us what we, as legislators, should do.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to everything my colleague had to say, and I would like to ask her one very specific question.

Under section 43 of the Official Languages Act, the Province of Quebec is excluded from the application of that Act. How, then, can you justify the right to court challenges for Quebec's anglophone minority, given that we are completely excluded from the application of the Official Languages Act? How can this program help minorities in Quebec when they are excluded from the Official Languages Act under the notwithstanding clause and section 43?

There is one other thing I would like to know. Your party voted against Bill S-3—against the promotion of French in the other provinces. Perhaps the court challenges program can help with social matters, but what can it do to help us linguistically? What good is it?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. The answer to his question is self-evident.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Laval defend the federal charter, which I found somewhat ironic because in 1982, the Parti Québécois government used section 33 of the federal charter.

It is a bit ironic to hear a member of the Bloc defending the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was a Parti Québécois government in 1982 that actually invoked the notwithstanding clause over all of the statutes for the province of Quebec, thereby exempting all the statute legislation there from the charter. It is a bit ironic to listen to the member's comments in defence of the charter.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, that is not what I said. I did not defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I said that if the court challenges program is eliminated, the charter would not even be worth the paper it is printed on. That does not mean I was defending the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would encourage my Conservative colleagues to listen carefully when we are speaking. Perhaps they would find it useful.

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

Mr. Speaker, since I see that another three minutes remain in the debate, I will proceed quickly.

I am pleased to speak here today, because the issue of the court challenges program is of enormous concern to minority language rights in Canada. As the member for the riding that is home to the Montfort Hospital, it is understandable how upset and disappointed the people of my riding were—as were most Canadians—when they learned that this new government was going to cancel the court challenges program. Afterwards, we were told not to worry, because the government would not introduce any unconstitutional legislation.

Since that time, however, we know that two provinces have challenged the constitutionality of proposed legislation. We were also told that this would apply only to new legislation. That is not the case, since the entire legal structure built since 1867 is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Thus, Canadians have the right to verify if existing legislation applies and if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does indeed ensure that these laws are set aside. In certain cases, this also means all provincial laws.

By telling us not to worry, the government is denying the existence of the whole legislative system of this country and the provinces. We have a problem with that. Earlier, a Conservative member from the Quebec City area asked what the loss of the program meant to francophone minorities and minority communities. My answer is that thanks to the charter of rights and freedoms and the court challenges program, Prince Edward Island was able to get French-language schools and Ottawa was able to keep a hospital in part. That is how the program helped minority communities.

The court challenges program proved its effectiveness time and time again, and linguistic minorities across the country were able to assert and win their rights under the charter of rights and freedoms.

It is supremely ironic that the government has just announced that it will pay $22 million to fund the operating costs of the Museum of Human Rights, when it has done away with the court challenges program, which cost $2.7 million annually.

I do not begrudge what the government will spend on the Museum of Human Rights, but the signs indicate that the court challenges program was cancelled for ideological rather than financial reasons. I know that the government will have to live with this decision and that the next time Canada goes to the polls, the government will pay for denying the least fortunate in our society access to a world-renowned program that recognized their rights.