Members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, you asked us to appear before you today in order to identify the impact of the elimination of the Court Challenges Program. The FCFA would like to thank you for giving us this time to meet with you in order to make you aware of our opinions, our point of view.
My name is Marielle Beaulieu, and I am the Executive Director of the FCFA of Canada. I'm accompanied by my colleague Diane Côté, who also works at the FCFA, and by my colleagues from the CNPF, the Commission nationale des parents francophones. You will have the pleasure of hearing from them later on.
The FCFA has already submitted a short brief highlighting the situation. I believe that the brief was sent to you in time so that it could be translated and distributed to you for consultation.
Today, in the few minutes available to us, I will try to provide you with a brief overview of the issue by identifying, first of all, the main gains achieved as a result of the Court Challenges Program in the area of language rights—that goes without saying—and by, secondly, pinpointing the repercussions that we expect to see as a result of the elimination of the program.
Let's start at the beginning. For all francophone and Acadian communities across Canada, the CCP has been an essential tool enabling us to both clarify and advance language rights for the francophone minority. Moreover, many language cases have been heard and resolved thanks to the support provided by the Court Challenges Program.
Let's refer to some of the cases that have enabled us to obtain, first of all, school management: the Mahé v. Alberta case, the reference regarding the Public Schools Act of Manitoba; the Association des parents francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v. British Columbia, and I could name many others.
Other cases, such as Doucet-Boudreau and Arsenault-Cameron, enabled us to clarify the state's obligation with respect to education rights and schools.
I will not go into great detail about the issue of education since my colleagues from the CNPF will be able to go into this matter in greater detail. But the question that I would ask you here, this afternoon, and I will put it to all the members of this committee, is as follows. Without such a recourse, would we have French-language schools throughout the country today? I will take the liberty of asking you this question but I will also take the liberty of expressing my doubts about the outcome.
The CCP has also enabled us to fund legal recourse for services in French. We should mention, first of all, the famous Montfort case, which you have all heard about, which allowed us to safeguard the only French-language teaching hospital west of Quebec. There was also the Beaulac case, which clarified language rights for the accused while at the same time specifying the principles and the interpretive framework which apply to language rights in Canada.
Other cases funded by the Court Challenges Program enabled us to clarify the obligations of governments to provide services in French. We could, as well, refer you to the lawsuit initiated by the Federation franco-ténoise in 1999, which was heard in 2006, and which led to a Northwest Territories Supreme Court decision recognizing the territorial government's obligation to provide services in French to its citizens. It should be noted that, unfortunately, the government of the Northwest Territories appealed the decision and it will be difficult for the Franco-Ténois community to pay for the costs of this new step in the legal process.
In a nutshell, we would affirm that the Court Challenges Program, which was created in 1978, has done a great deal to promote the development of francophone and anglophone minorities in Canada over the past few years, thereby contributing to the promotion of the full recognition of the use of French and English in Canadian society.
The elimination of the CCP will have a negative impact on the timelessness of the francophone and Acadian communities in Canada. On many occasions our government has told us that it would pass constitutional legislation and respect it.
History has shown us that, a system such as ours, it is up to the courts to interpret the laws. In other words, even if the governments have the best of intentions, it is the courts that have the authority to interpret laws and their constitutionality.
Let us now look into the impact of the elimination of the program. Numerous lawsuits have enabled us to clarify and consolidate the rights of francophone minorities and to advance the communities. However, at the time that the funding of this program was cut, there remained a considerable amount of legal work to be done to ensure that francophones were able to fully avail themselves of their constitutional rights and achieve true equality, as prescribed by the Canadian Constitution—that goes without saying—and the Official Languages Act.
We have already mentioned the case of the Franco-Ténois community versus the Government of the Northwest Territories, which will be appealed. Lawsuits which are currently underway include the Paulin case in New Brunswick, the Caron case in Alberta, and the school surtax case in Nova Scotia. These cases have been listed in the brief that we submitted and they are well identified.
These cases, like the ones before them, could enable us to advance, recognize, and interpret and enforce the language rights of francophones. In other words, this work will not be completed until there is true equality for both French and English and full access to services in French of equal quality. Up until now, although the courts are not our first choice as far as taking action is concerned—and that is a very important aspect—they have and will always be the best authority to ensure that minorities are able to avail themselves of their rights.
Up until today, Canada has been a model tor the way that it deals with its minorities. In that respect, the CCP has been an incalculable support for facilitating the interpretation of the written and unwritten principles of the charter. Although the rights guaranteed by the charter are a source of pride for Canadians, we still have to ensure that they are in practice, applied and respected on a daily basis.
Without the CCP, communities would have found it difficult to come up with financial resources—this is very clear to us—to remind the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments of their constitutional linguistic obligations and responsibilities. And I would tell you that up until now, the vast majority of language rights cases that have been brought to trial have been against the provincial and territorial governments. Consequently, these cases were about the implementation and application of these rights.
Up until now, the Court Challenges Program has supported groups representing ordinary Canadian citizens who otherwise would not have had the means to ensure that the constitutional rights guaranteed to them under the charter were recognized and respected.
Finally, the abolition of the Court Challenges Program clearly indicates that the federal government has, unfortunately, failed to meet its obligations under the Official Languages Act, particularly part VII, by eliminating, without any consultation, a program that is proving to be essential to the enhancement and development of francophone and anglophone minorities in Canada.
Thank you for listening to us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Côté and I will be pleased to answer your questions.