Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 13th, 2006

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

Thank you.

Ms. St-Amand.

[Gisèle St-Amand]

Based on my information, not at all.

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

Mr. Tabachnick.

[Marcus Tabachnick]

No, what we were looking for was the lawyer who was best able to represent us, and that's the only criterion by which we judged.

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

Thank you.

Also, in justifying their decision to cancel this program,

The government said that it intended to introduce only constitutional bills. This is always the intent of any government, despite the fact that it is up to legislators and the courts to determine whether bills are constitutional or not.

This is the point I want to make. With regard to the scope of the Court Challenges Program, I know that I am right in believing—but I'd like you to confirm this—that it extends beyond bills introduced in Parliament. In fact, it goes beyond existing legislation and legislation that provincial governments may introduce and enact. It also goes beyond what provincial governments do or don't do, such as Prince Edward Island's refusal to build schools. This is an example of a decision by a government not to take action.

In your opinion, does the scope of the Court Challenges Program go beyond bills that a government may introduce in the Canadian Parliament?

[Gisèle Lalonde]

Mr. Bélanger, I believe that, in fact, the federal government does not have power over everything. The provincial governments have power over some things. Minorities need, above all, social services, education and health care services.

The federal government can be the best government in the world, and yet have a provincial government that fails to respect the francophones in its province, as in our case.

As a result, we are waiting for the federal government to help us, first, because it is responsible for minorities, particularly the Senate, through the Court Challenges Program. We also expect the government to try mediation or correspondence of some kind through an exchange of letters with people in the province in question.

I think that the current federal government under Mr. Harper takes it for granted that everyone will act like it and will always be careful not to wrong the minority. However, we are seeing the opposite happen. In fact, there are not enough French schools in Prince Edward Island and Alberta. We do not even have benches, there is nothing. The situation was discussed the other day on a Radio Canada broadcast. What is happening there makes no sense. The Government of Alberta is responsible for the situation. The federal government has the responsibility to point to the situation and to help it. If the provincial government does not respond, at the very least, those who oppose this government must be helped.

I do not want to hear that it is their money; it is really our money. And the money they spend is also our money. It is illogical to say that, because, when you fight the central government, its representatives arrive with a whole bunch of lawyers.

They don't have only one lawyer; they come with three or four or five lawyers when they come to court, and they have lots of money. We had 12 lawyers who really work together, and we chose Mr. Caza here to defend our cause. We didn't have all of the money to pay him, but this program helped us.

We cannot think of another cause. We are in the capital of Canada. In Ontario we have the greatest majority of francophones outside Quebec; we have half of this group in the region of Ottawa, and we were lucky to get some money out of those people--but it's not everyone: there's one in Penetanguishene right now, and they don't have any money. They have won in court, but still the government--this is the Government of Canada, by the way, the Department of Industry--doesn't give them the money they need. They never had a project for the francophones over there.

These injustices are created sometimes by the federal government, but most of the time by the provincial governments. We need to have help. This is your responsibility. This is your role.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

If anyone else is going to answer on that, please be very brief, because we have only 15 minutes left.

[Ronald Caza]

Mr. Chair, may I answer briefly?

The Mike Harris government never thought they were acting illegally or unconstitutionally. In fact, if you look at all the legislation that has been set aside as a result of the court challenges program, never was there a government that purposely set out to violate linguistic rights. None of them did. They all felt that what they were doing was legal--but it wasn't, and it was up to the courts to make that determination.

[Gisèle St-Amand]

Mr. Chairman, I would add that the Court Challenges Program has the visible impact of seeing us go before the courts. However, it also acts as an incentive to encourage respect in our country, because our government is responsible for respecting our constitutional rights, the rights it conferred on us by implementing the charter.

[David Birnbaum, Executive Director, Quebec English School Boards Association]

First of all, the basic suggestion that a government will not adopt unconstitutional legislation is an absurdity. Is that to question that the judiciary is no longer a legitimate and vital branch of democracy? That leaves us rather speechless.

Secondly, if you look at the importance of this program and its potential importance to Canada's English-speaking linguistic minority, there hasn't been occasion yet—and we hope there won't be—to test section 23 in its full breadth with respect to the existence of English-speaking communities on the mainland and the school boards that support them. There are endless examples in Canada that show that those communities will not exist if their schools are not there. That program is important to us for something we may have to have recourse to many years from now or next year.

It's impossible to separate the charter from this program if this government is to suggest that the charter is, of course, a legitimate part of our legal and political fabric and its role is to defend that charter. The charter only exists if one has recourse to it; thus the program is essential.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kotto—and we have to try to keep some of this brief, because we only have about ten minutes left.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Right.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome.

As did we, you noted that the Conservative government abolished the Canada Volunteerism Initiative. It amended the Women's Program to prevent the funding of advocacy rights groups and lobby groups. Furthermore, it abolished the Court Challenges Program.

In our opinion, ideology is pushing us into a world where, socially, culturally and economically, Darwinism prevails.

Does this not concern you?

I am asking this question because I fear that the Conservative government will not restore this program, unless the government does something in the future to contradict us.

That said, what do you intend to do?

[Gisèle Lalonde]

Sir, we have fought for five years to save an institution. From 1912 to 1947, we fought against regulation 17 before it was withdrawn in its entirety. We also fought from 1970 to 1979-1980 for French schools.

Quite often, governments try to wear us down right to the bitter end. I am convinced that, for five years, the Government of Ontario truly believed that we would give up. It is indeed very difficult to keep up the momentum, when we take part in these battles. We will persevere and we will use the means we have.

I hope that the government will reflect and will rethink what it has done, because it is not logical. Mr. Harper speaks French quite well. When he wants to, he understands us clearly. So, why now are we having to fight this fight: women, children and all the most vulnerable members of our society? I have difficulty understanding how a government that is not right-wing can do such things.

[Ronald Caza]

I would briefly like to add that the message sent to anglophone and francophone minority communities is simple: cancelling the Court Challenges Program means that it's not worth continuing to try to live in the minority language. That is the message being sent.

You are wondering what the impact will be. The impact will be increased assimilation in Canada. That is a direct impact starting now. In fact, the government is sending all those small communities where people are fighting to preserve their own language the message that it's not worth doing it anymore.

[Gisèle St-Amand]

I don't think we have anything to add, except to say that the first mandate of a French-language school is to serve as a means for renewal of our communities. The future of the francophonie is intrinsically tied to access to and the success of education in French.

Mr. Kotto, I may be an eternal optimist, but I cannot believe that my government will be the cause of my undoing. In 1755, we were hard hit: we were deported. Today, we are being abandoned. You have to fix this.

[Marcus Tabachnick]

I would agree with what Mr. Caza has said. I think it's not so much what we'll do. We're going to keep moving forward. Every association will. Every community will do what it can to protect its future. But I think it's the message that comes out of this, and the message to minorities, the English community in Quebec. This attacks the very heart of what this country is about, and that's protecting the people who need the ability to be protected.

And this is the court of last resort. It's not something that anybody runs to in the first instance. It is a last chance opportunity to protect the rights that you have as a minority within your community.

What we're being told is it's too bad, you don't need that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Very, very briefly, Mr. Kotto.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

You referred correctly to section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Some of those opposed to the restoration of the program are citing section 15, on equality rights, to justify the fact that this program is in violation of that section.

Do you have any comment on this?

[Ronald Caza]

Why? There's a contradiction between section 15 and section 23?

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

No. Well, that is what some people think. They use section 15 to “demonize” the Court Challenges Program, because they feel it is not egalitarian. Groups are challenging the program's credibility on that basis.

[Ronald Caza]

I can add that section 15 does not apply to section 23. This section seeks to protect the minority. So, it is clear that the minority is being given rights that the majority does not need.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

You don't need to convince me, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Thank you.

[Gisèle St-Amand]

The court also said that there is nothing more unequal than ensuring equal treatment for people who are different.

[Marcus Tabachnick]

That is the answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian.