Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Louise Aucoin and I am the President of the Federation of Associations of French-speaking Jurists of common law, the FAFSJC.
I thank this committee for its invitation to speak to you about the Court Challenges Program of Canada.
The FAFSJC includes seven associations of French-speaking jurists and represents approximately 1,200 jurists. The FAFSJC promotes and defends the language rights of francophone minorities in the area of Canadian justice. The FAFSJC is also a member of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA.
Firstly, the FAFSJC wishes to make clear that it fully supports the statements made in the written submission tabled last week by the FCFA, and in particular those made on the decisive role that the CCP plays in fostering the development of francophone minorities as well as the full recognition and promotion of the French language in Canadian society. In fact, access to justice in French and judicial bilingualism has progressed significantly, thanks to court challenges supported by the CCP, such as the Beaulac and Donnie Doucet cases. By abolishing CCP funding, we run the risk of stagnating, at best, or losing ground in the area of language rights, at worse. This does not augur well for part VII of the Official Languages Act nor for improving access to justice in French outside Quebec.
The FAFSJC is deeply concerned over the impact abolishing funding will have on the ability of francophone and Acadian communities to defend their constitutional rights. In fact, we are already hearing about certain francophone groups and individuals who no longer have the means to defend their language rights before the courts. Their situation can be summarized as follows: no funding means no access, means no defence of language rights, and less progress made in their respective fields. In fact, the FAFSJC has already fallen victim to the situation, because for financial reasons, we will be unable to even think about intervening in the Paulin case, which will probably be brought before the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007. The case deals with the role of the RCMP in New Brunswick and will most likely lead to discussion on the RCMP's role throughout Canada.
Abolishing the Court Challenges Program also diminishes the benefits of Canadian citizenship, particularly for linguistic minorities in Canada. Why? Because a francophone who chooses to live in a province where he will be a minority may be forced to pay out-of-pocket in order to make sure that his constitutional language rights are respected. In fact, this is already costing many people hundreds of thousands of dollars. A minority francophone may have language rights, on condition that he is willing to pay to have them respected, which may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, or whatever it costs to have his case heard before the courts.
In addition to giving preference to Quebec francophone groups, these measures do nothing to foster respect for francophone language rights throughout the entire country. On the contrary, the elimination of CCP funding is giving francophone minorities the following message: it's your language, it's your problem, if you want your language rights to be protected you will have to pay for it. The issue is not considered a matter of public interest which is deserving of federal funding.
While the abolition of CCP funding means that some groups or individuals will not be receiving funds, the FAFSJC endorses broadening the mandate of the CCP so long as this action is not detrimental to the disadvantaged and linguistic minorities, as Mr. Rollason said so eloquently. However, it is not by abolishing the disadvantaged and linguistic minorities' access to justice that such a debate will be held.
If abolishing CCP funding is based on the principle that the federal government should not contribute to lawsuits brought against itself, then the tax system, among other things, should also be reformed. For example, the media can claim business expenses and thus reduce their taxes in constitutional cases against the federal government. Therefore, if the federal government is already indirectly subsidizing the protection of the constitutional rights of certain corporations through the tax system, why shouldn't the government also assist Canadian citizens, including francophone minorities, to protect their rights?
The FAFSJC does not believe that the benefits of Canadian citizenship should accrue exclusively to the well-off and to francophone and anglophone majorities.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer your questions.