House of Commons Hansard #169 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was million.

Topics

7:05 p.m.

Fundy Royal New Brunswick

Conservative

Rob Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I will read from the hon. member's question referencing improved access to legal aid. This was a question he put to the Minister of Justice and he asked that if the minister refuses to budge and does not save the court challenges program, would he at least improve access to legal aid to provide Canadians with justice.

It is the question's premise, that somehow this government is not paying its share for legal aid, that I want to completely reject. I want to speak of the contribution that our government is making toward the court system and ensuring that accused in our system have access to justice and access to legal aid.

One of our government's key priorities is to protect Canadian families and communities through a strengthened justice system that is accountable, efficient, accessible and responsive. Criminal legal aid ensures that an accused will not go free simply because in the absence of being able to pay for a lawyer himself or herself, the right to a fair trial would be violated.

Since the 1970s, the federal government has been contributing to the cost of criminal legal aid through agreements with the provinces. The federal government has also provided resources to the territories for both criminal and civil legal aid through contribution agreements.

In recent years, growing pressures on the legal aid system have led the federal government in collaboration with the provinces and territories to conduct extensive research to examine the needs and to consider innovative ways of ensuring that the legal aid needs of economically disadvantaged Canadians are met. I think this speaks to some of what the hon. member was saying in his speech to ensure that there is access to justice.

The agreements respecting legal aid covering fiscal year 2003-04 to fiscal year 2005-06 initiated a legal aid renewal strategy. These agreements were subsequently extended by one year by our government.

With regard to the provision for civil legal aid, which is quite distinct from criminal legal aid, the federal government has contributed to the provision of civil legal aid since the early 1970s. Initially, funding to the provinces was provided through the Canada assistance plan. Then in 1995-96, the Canada assistance plan was absorbed into the Canada health and social transfer, known as the CHST. Now the Canada social transfer has replaced the Canada health and social transfer.

Canada's new government in budget 2007 extended the CST to 2013-14. The budget also provides that support for social assistance and social services, including civil legal aid, will increase to $6.2 billion in 2007-08. As a result of the 3% annual CST escalator, this funding will increase to $7.2 billion by 2013-14.

In addition to civil legal aid resources contained in the CST, since 2001-02 the federal government has also provided through the legal aid agreements an additional $11.5 million annually for immigration and refugee legal aid to the six provinces currently providing these services. Those include British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Canada's new government is committed to continued funding for criminal legal aid. That is why for the first time in over 10 years, and this is important, we are increasing permanently the ongoing funding for criminal legal aid by the $30 million provided as interim resources--

7:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand the message that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada would like to send, but my question had nothing to do with legal aid for criminal matters.

However, one has to wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada does not think that official language minority communities wishing to defend their rights should apply for legal aid in the criminal court system. I do not think the government fully understands the needs facing minorities in terms of defending their rights. Such comments are completely unacceptable.

Will the government finally show some understanding and bring back the court challenges program in its entirety—not partially, but in its entirety? Do we have to elect a Liberal government for the court challenges program to be fully reinstated, and not only for official language minority communities, but for all minorities, including linguistic minorities, people with disabilities and all other minorities?

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Mr. Speaker, we can have that debate also on the court challenges program.

The member said that unless there is proper access to legal aid and to the court challenges program, only the rich will have equal rights which is unacceptable. He asked if the Minister of Justice would improve access to legal aid to provide Canadians with the justice they are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is based on that question that I am providing this answer on what our government is doing to enhance legal aid and therefore enhance access to justice for the individuals whom the member referenced in his question, those who need help through legal aid.

The permanent funding over 10 years is unprecedented. It provides the provinces with stable funding for their legal aid programs. Over the next five years, the government will contribute $560 million to the provinces--

7:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

Order. I am sorry, but the hon. parliamentary secretary's time has expired.

The hon. member for Gatineau.

7:10 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, on May 16, I asked the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages how embarrassed she was to learn that the Commissioner of Official Languages was criticizing the abolition of the court challenges program. This program helped keep the Montfort Hospital going in Vanier, here in the Ottawa area. It also helped groups such as francophones in Alberta and Saskatchewan and Acadians fight for their own schools.

We know that the government did not decide to abolish the court challenges program to achieve economies of scale. It was for purely ideological reasons, but in the process, the government has violated the rights to equality of women, homosexuals, first nations, immigrants and official language minorities in Quebec and the rest of Canada. In fact, a number of minority groups have been hurt by the abolition of this program.

And what about the federal government's decision to eliminate the requirement that senior military officers be bilingual? What about the federal government's appointment of a unilingual anglophone as ombudsman for victims of crime? What about the appointment of a chair of the National Capital Commission in Ottawa who does not speak a word of French in a so-called bilingual region?

My question was: why has the government repeatedly attacked official language rights and equal respect for French and English? However, the examples I gave were mainly about French.

We also know that on October 17, 2006, the current Prime Minister said that the court challenges program was no longer useful because his government intended to respect the Constitution. That adds insult to injury because by abolishing the court challenges program, the current government is respecting neither the Official Languages Act nor the famous Bill S-3, which strengthened the Official Languages Act. The government voted in favour of the bill, but is not respecting it. Part VII stipulates that the government must take action to ensure respect for official languages.

The Prime Minister's statements are contradictory. Moreover, the federal government cannot guarantee that provincial governments, school boards, school divisions, municipalities and other bodies will respect the Constitution. That is why the court challenges program must remain in place.

Just today, the Quebec Community Groups Network itself told us that it believes that by eliminating this program, the government is failing to respect the act. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, said this in committee, as did the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. The Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick said it before the Standing Committee on Official Languages today. Gisèle Lalonde, who led the fight to keep the Montfort hospital, emphasized this point. Guy Matte, who chaired the court challenges program, was not even consulted about the effectiveness of the program.

7:15 p.m.

Beauport—Limoilou Québec

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the comments made by my Bloc colleague in the House on May 16.

The Government of Canada has not trampled on the equality rights of any Canadian. Our government is committed to ensuring that its laws respect human rights. It is the rightful responsibility of the government to do so. Our government is accountable to the Canadian public for establishing priorities and ensuring that every tax dollar is used as effectively as possible and in the interests of all Canadians.

As you know, the court challenges program was instituted in 1978. Its initial objective was to help minority language groups or individuals to assert their linguistic rights under the Constitution. In 1985, the mandate of the CCP was broadened to include groups asking for equality, or in other words, members of our society faced with any form of discrimination.

The purpose of the program was to clarify the scope of equality rights and language rights by making it possible to launch test cases dealing with these issues, thus establishing the case law in this area. Given that the program was in existence for some 30 years, those supporting its reinstatement must recognize that we now have a fair body of case law in language and equality rights.

We have stated many times that it is the government's responsibility to ensure that legislation and policies respect the constitutional standards set out in the Charter. We will continue to do so. It is also important to recognize that since the program was created, Canadian society has made significant progress with respect to language rights and equality.

For example, in 1988, the government of the day strengthened the Official Languages Act by stating that federal institutions were committed to supporting the growth and development of official language minority communities.

Also in 1988, the government passed the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, making Canada the first country in the world to enact such legislation. The act confirms that multiculturalism is a fundamental value for Canadian society and the Government of Canada. Through the multiculturalism program, the Government of Canada finances projects that recognize the value of our diversity and address issues facing cultural communities.

For example, consider the foreign credentials recognition issue. Access to the job market is crucial to the integration of ethnocultural communities. Our government recognizes that people with foreign credentials often encounter major obstacles. We are committed to doing everything in our power to help them overcome those obstacles.

That is why we are funding projects to support professionals as they take the necessary look at job market access. This will enable new Canadians to begin the qualification process and search for a job that matches their talents, abilities, and above all, their experience.

Furthermore, our government has cut the permanent residence fee in half and has allocated over $300 million to additional settlement measures.

With respect to official language minority communities—

7:20 p.m.

NDP

7:20 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, we are still hearing things that are completely beside the point. Again today, in the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we saw the Conservative government returning to its good old Reform roots, with an ideology completely against the French fact in a minority setting. We saw that today. It is not even remotely familiar with the history of the fights led by French-speaking minorities in the last century to have their views accepted.

The court challenges program is a necessary tool to prevent David and Goliath-type fights. We are talking about the government, with its army of lawyers, against volunteers and parents who cannot pay for an army of lawyers to have their rights respected. This is why the court challenges program is so important.

I hope the Conservative government can get its heart in the right place and recognize this vital tool for fully recognizing the rights of this country's minorities.

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will not get into a debate about court challenges at this time, because, as we all know, that matter is currently before the courts. Furthermore, I am fully aware of the fact that we will be debating a motion calling for that program to be re-instated next week. To enter into such a debate now would therefore be a waste of precious time at taxpayers' expense. We will be pleased to debate this next week.

I would like to remind my hon. Bloc colleague that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Whether they are for or against it, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and no one who testified before the Standing Committee on Official Languages should have their reputation tarnished.

We are working in cooperation with all members, and all members are entitled to their opinion. As for—

7:20 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

Order, please. I am sorry, but the time has expired.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:22 p.m.)