Yes, and we do.
Evidence of meeting #31 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funding.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #31 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funding.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
But the decisions that were made for funding were based on whether the rights that were being promoted were suggesting an expanded interpretation of the charter, as opposed to a restricting one. Is that right?
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
“Clarify” is a broad word. That's why I quoted that from the purpose. “Clarification” is a broad word and would include a restrictive interpretation. On any given day, the courts of this country are interpreting laws, sometimes more restrictively and sometimes more broadly.
When we are dealing with something as important as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is important that both sides of arguments be heard. We heard from organizations that appeared before us as witnesses that they had applied for funding to either be intervenors or to be primary litigants to an action and were refused. That really sticks in the craw of many Canadians.
It's not a personal attack on you. It's that the program itself was unbalanced.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Make it a very short reply because we have gone over the time.
9:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Court Challenges Program of Canada
Let me answer very quickly in terms of the balance. If REAL Women wanted to make an application to fund a case that would advance equality rights for women, certainly I would think they're an eligible group. Whether the issue they would bring forward would be eligible under the vision, if you will, of human rights legislation, international and Canadian.... When the panel looks at an application, it looks at international and human rights law in Canada and at jurisprudence. They make sure it's consistent with the expansion, the inclusiveness, of having more Canadians being included under the laws, policies, and practices of the federal government.
That's the idea. People who are supporting the status quo.... The government is already doing that. Why would you spend more taxpayer dollars to help support the government? If the government wanted to provide us with the money to do that, we could include it, but that's not really the intent or the spirit of what the court challenges program was all about. It is called the court challenges program; it's to help people challenge existing legislation, not to help people support it.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you very much. We went a little over time on that one.
Mr. Scott.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you very much. I'll try to be concise.
On the question of the evaluation, it's quite clear there was a reference to the executive summary. The executive summary in its conclusion said quite clearly that while many individuals expressed the desire to have the CPP expanded, that wouldn't be the most efficient way to deal with what the court challenges program was designed to do.
One of the people on the independent review of the summary was Justice Gérard La Forest. I spoke to him this morning to revisit the issue and he continued to hold that in fact the court challenges program was operating the way it was supposed to, and the evaluation is quite clear on that point.
I think it is a larger issue. I'm going to agree with Mr. Angus. This is ideological. At the end of the day, just speaking to the question of conflict, if in fact holding a prior position disqualifies you from making a decision, then I would suggest this court challenges program didn't have a chance.
I would refer you to Ian Brodie, who I think holds some prominence with the government. They doled out millions to radical organizations and urged them to start charter challenges that targeted traditional Canadian values and laws. My sense is that the court challenges program was dead on the arrival of the new government if in fact you hold the position that a previously existing position disqualifies you from making these kinds of decisions.
More than that, the Treasury Board chairman at the time said it didn't make sense for the government to subsidize lawyers to challenge the government's own laws in court, which shows a painful misunderstanding of what the court challenges program is about, or, for that matter, even what the charter is about, because then the Prime Minister went on to say that they didn't intend to introduce any unconstitutional laws. That isn't for the Prime Minister to decide; that is for the court to decide. That's what the charter is about.
Given that the Prime Minister of Canada does not seem to understand the relationship between Parliament, which created the charter, and the court, which interprets the charter, this is a sad day for democracy and minority rights in Canada. The court challenges program is a victim of that ideology. I don't think there is anything more to it than that.
In terms of the question of whether or not the applications were deemed unacceptable by the court challenges program by virtue of who the organization was, as against whether or not the organization was actually acting consistently with the mandate of the court challenges program to challenge the government on an unconstitutional decision in their minds--and that's what the court challenges program was designed to do--can you confirm for me that this in fact was the reason that somebody who would come forward with an application would be denied? It wasn't because of who they were or what argument they put. It was whether or not they in fact were challenging a law of the government in the name of the charter.
10 a.m.
Executive Director, Court Challenges Program of Canada
I have to confirm that the criteria are set out very clearly in the contribution agreement. They're followed very closely, and the evaluation in 2003 confirmed that the program was doing exactly what the government's mandate was for the court challenges program. Every application that comes through is reviewed on its own merits. I can confirm that we don't look at the name of who is applying for funding. The importance is the issue, whether it's going to make things more equal for all Canadians or advance the language rights of official minority communities in Canada.
As I said, REAL Women can apply, or any other group that was here before the committee. In fact, some groups that have received funding have been refused because the issue they brought forth wasn't substantive enough in terms of advancing or fulfilling the mandate of the court challenges program.
Every application is reviewed on its own merit. That I can confirm, without a doubt.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
Mr. Chair, I would like to confirm for the purpose of the people who are watching, particularly, that Parliament created the charter. The Supreme Court ultimately would arbitrate whether or not government decisions were compliant with the charter. It wasn't limited only to those people who had the means to engage private counsel. The court challenges program was designed so that people who didn't have the means to get private counsel would be able to exercise their charter rights as citizens of Canada. The court challenges program offers that.
Its cancellation, particularly in the face of the arguments that have been put by the former chairman of the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister as to why we would offer an opportunity for a Canadian to sue the government, basically denies a fundamental understanding of what Parliament decided in terms of the charter and a fundamental misunderstanding of the role and the relationship of Parliament to government and the charter. The court challenges program is simply an unfortunate victim of that ideologically driven mistake.
10 a.m.
Member of the Board of Directors, Court Challenges Program of Canada
To kind of build on that, before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we had the British North America Act. With all the international agreements Canada had started entering into, it was no longer a domestic remedy because it didn't protect the obligations Canada made to our international partners through international law. So that's where we started to look at how we changed it.
We came up with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it has been pushed at the international level over and over again by our government, as a way of showing that as committed partners within international law we are protecting the rights of even the most vulnerable in our community.
I was in Geneva in May and presented before the economic, social, and cultural committee At that time, our government stood proudly before that international body and supported having the court challenges program as a way to ensure protection for the most vulnerable in this community and country.
What went wrong? Where was it no longer valuable? That's my question.
10 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a comment and a question. My comment follows what Ms. Martin said.
Earlier, I referred to three conventions to which Canada is a signatory, that is, two conventions and a report which Canada accepted. I would like to come back on that subject for the next few minutes. Indeed, Canada made a commitment before the Human Rights Committee, and the report of our witnesses mentions this in an international context. I would like to remind you that Canada signed on to the report, the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, and it is extremely important—in any case, it was extremely important—for Canada to have been a signatory. By signing that Covenant, Canada was officially recognized as being an advocate for minority rights and human rights in Canada.
There is also the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Canada is also a signatory to that convention. Canada was never shy about telling the world that it was one of only 20 countries which at the time signed on to this convention. I believe that Canada would lose a lot of credibility if it eliminated its Court Challenges Program, since its is thanks to the Charter, and to the covenant signed within the framework of the convention, that several feminist groups in Canada were able to uphold their rights.
Third, there is the Erasmus-Dussault Report. Last fall, the minister responsible for aboriginal communities told us that he agreed with the Erasmus-Dussault Report on native communities and that there had to be changes. He promoted the report. Canada would look rather foolish if it abolished the Court Challenges Program, since this program could help our native communities.
I will now move on to my question for the witnesses.
In its 2003 summative evaluation of the Court Challenges Program, the Corporate Review Branch made a recommendation which I find extremely important. It is recommendation six, which says that, in the name of transparency and accountability, if the program were to be renewed, it should include a greater exchange of information between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the organization. The program's detractors told the committee all kinds of stories and they do not seem to be aware of how things work within your organization.
First, don't you think there was a communication problem? Second, don't you think that it would be to your advantage to appear more often before the Canadian Heritage Committee to present reports, which would have perhaps allowed us to support you even more? Do you think that more could have been done in that regard?
10:05 a.m.
President, Court Challenges Program of Canada
I will give you two answers. Firstly, it is certain that if you were to invite us more often, we would be more than happy to accept. We have absolutely no concerns over the organization's transparency.
Secondly, all those wishing to make an application will find information in our documents and on our website. Anyone with concerns, or those who simply happen to fall upon the website, will be able to access all relevant information on the Court Challenges Program, including information on criteria, procedure and eligibility. The website also posts a few cases. Most cases can be found on the Internet, since they are also included in our annual reports.
As you know, all communication requires two parties: the communicator and the party receiving the communication. Mr. Fast is right, and let's not try to hide it, there are groups in Canada that are not the least bit interested in developing Canadian law in relation to the Charter. I must come to terms with the following fact: there are people who are against broadening rights, clarifying the rights of certain underprivileged groups, and those people are also a part of the Canadian spirit. This is why we are Canadians. I accept this fact, but blame cannot be placed on the program because there are groups who want nothing to do with it.
10:05 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
For example, could an individual or group that has suffered psychological harassment and is lacking the means to defend itself be able to address your organization in order to claim their rights or receive assistance? As regards psychological harassment, we all know that there are no laws in Canada which address this problem.
10:05 a.m.
Executive Director, Court Challenges Program of Canada
The applicant would have to make sure that the request fulfils all criteria to obtain financing, meaning the issue must relate to equality rights or linguistic rights. If indeed, the matter deals with equality rights or a federal government policy, assistance would be available, but there would certainly have to be an element of—
10:10 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Suppose the case deals with a homosexual, for example—
10:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Court Challenges Program of Canada
It must be a political matter. In addition, it must concern a member of a historically disadvantaged group. The application must concern equality rights.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chair, I would like to continue on a little bit and ask the witnesses some questions to help me understand how the program worked.
First of all, who appoints the board of the court challenges program?