Good afternoon. I represent the Canadian Association of the Deaf, having acted for it in its successful case against the Government of Canada, whereby we won the right to have sign language interpreters when accessing government. This case was in the media all across the country. It was on the front page of the The Globe and Mail and was the leading news item on national news for part of the day as well. This meant deaf and hard-of-hearing Canadians were no longer being treated like second-class citizens.
That case was funded by the court challenges program, so you can see how important the court challenges program is to people with disabilities. Hence, we feel the court challenges program is useful and, contrary to media reports, not only for special interest groups. How could one consider people with disabilities as a special interest group? People with disabilities are among the most unemployed, most poor, and most disadvantaged people in Canada. Moreover, people with disabilities didn't ask to be disabled. All we're trying to do is overcome our barriers. In the special case of deaf persons, we feel we are a community with a unique language. If the court challenges program returns in its present form, I do have some comments on how to improve the program, and they are as follows.
First, increase the maximum funding allocated from $60,000 to $100,000. Since the cases funded by court challenges inevitably involve the charter, these cases can often be complex and cannot be litigated effectively for under $60,000. Remember that a large chunk of the money often goes to expert witness fees or photocopying fees for huge volumes of court documents. If others feel the court challenges program gets enough money as it is, fine. Then reduce the number of cases funded. But I strongly recommend that once a case is approved, it should not be severally curtailed by a lack of funding.
Secondly, reduce the holdback from 25% to 10%. It is often hard for the lawyer to keep litigating once he reaches the 25% holdback, and it is demoralizing. The lawyer may end up not getting paid for a year or two, while attempting to ensure that the case ends in a trial. The court challenges program should trust that the lawyer and the client are dedicated to finishing the case and should not impose such a punitive holdback. Why is the court challenges program holding back 25% if the government standard is 10%? Examples would be Industry Canada's contributions program for non-profit consumer and voluntary organizations; Social Development's contributions program for early learning projects; Canadian Heritage's contributions program to promote RESPs; and Human Resources Development's contributions program called the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities.
Thirdly, speed up payments and make them much quicker. It takes six to eight weeks for the court challenges program to write a cheque to the lawyer after being presented with an invoice. Surely there should not be so much bureaucracy that they cannot write a simple cheque in less than three weeks. I do agree with accountability, but accountability does not have to take forever to accomplish.
Fourthly, increase the number of meetings every year held by the panel of lawyers who approve new projects. Currently the panel meets only every three months on average. Thus, people who suddenly have an urgent court case may find themselves waiting three months to find out if they can fund a lawyer for an important case. For example, many court cases must be started within thirty days after a certain event occurs, such as rejection of a government benefit to a taxpayer. I would recommend that the panel meet every month. This would also speed up the bureaucracy that exists.
Thank you very much.